Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Bella54 on December 07, 2025, 12:48:46 pm

Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on March 01, 2026, 09:00:59 am: Quote from: InterCity125 on March 01, 2026, 08:52:02 am
The non compliant NtK is immediately fatal to the operators case - I'd just focus on that and maybe one or two other points of rebuttal which you can demonstrate - in other words, don't use subjectiveness.

In fact, if it was me, I'd comment purely on the non complaint NtK because I do not want to give the assessor the opportunity to 'skip over' that awkward point by offering up side issues.

(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji108.png) Thank you again.

No point in complicating the complicated ;D
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: InterCity125 on March 01, 2026, 08:52:02 am: The non compliant NtK is immediately fatal to the operators case - I'd just focus on that and maybe one or two other points of rebuttal which you can demonstrate - in other words, don't use subjectiveness.

In fact, if it was me, I'd comment purely on the non complaint NtK because I do not want to give the assessor the opportunity to 'skip over' that awkward point by offering up side issues.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on February 28, 2026, 07:50:32 pm: Quote from: InterCity125 on February 24, 2026, 04:38:17 pm
Comments on Euro Car Parks evidence.

Once again the operator asserts that the NtK is PoFA compliant when it is not.

In order to be compliant the NtK must contain specific 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 (Para 9(2)(e)(i) requirement but not present on the Euro Car Parks NtK)

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 (Para 9(2)(e)(ii) requirement)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 legal choice which 9(2)(e) requires.

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

If the required mandatory wording and subsequent legal choice is present on the NtK then, I would ask that either Euro Car Parks or the POPLA assessor point out the required statutory wording?

In order to rely on PoFA, all requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) must be met - the wording is not subjective, it is 100% objective in nature.

The missing wording is immediately fatal to the operators case.

Thank you intercity125.

Still no wiser as to the "land owner" of this site is really?? (as the contract is heavily redacted)

We've got your comments ready to go on to POPLA's site.

Should we add that we're reliant on the details as stipulated in our POPLA Appeal Letter PDF?

just been looking through the 34pgs of doc's Euro Car Parks has sent and there's also a photo that they've submitted showing the Tesco store and where they're signage actually is placed.

Is it worth adding a sentence to the comments using they're photographic evidence against them by suggesting that this site's signage, is misleading to Tesco customers and is clearly making substantial financial gains particularly at this site also??

Its a point that we didn't raise in the POPLA Appeal letter

The evidence Euro Car Parks have supplied POPLA is very vague & generic.

We're also aware that POPLA is not likely to address this matter in our favour anyway :o

Just wondered if these points need airing at the POPLA stage or holding onto them for later down the "well travelled road" ??
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: InterCity125 on February 24, 2026, 04:38:17 pm: Comments on Euro Car Parks evidence.

Once again the operator asserts that the NtK is PoFA compliant when it is not.

In order to be compliant the NtK must contain specific 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 (Para 9(2)(e)(i) requirement but not present on the Euro Car Parks NtK)

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 (Para 9(2)(e)(ii) requirement)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 legal choice which 9(2)(e) requires.

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

If the required mandatory wording and subsequent legal choice is present on the NtK then, I would ask that either Euro Car Parks or the POPLA assessor point out the required statutory wording?

In order to rely on PoFA, all requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) must be met - the wording is not subjective, it is 100% objective in nature.

The missing wording is immediately fatal to the operators case.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: jfollows on February 24, 2026, 04:31:17 pm: Essentially, you need to counter any statements made by ECP in their 34 pages that you disagree with, and if they have not responded to appeal points that you have made you point this out and say that they therefore agree with them.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on February 24, 2026, 04:28:36 pm: Hi All

We've received an email today from POPLA informing us that they've received documents from Euro Car Parks (which is 34pgs, mostly photos of signage and exerts heavily redacted of the so called land owners contract???)

POPLA are informing us that we have 7 days to comment on the documents.

Are there any specific pages we need to load on to here for viewing??

Can anyone Pleas advise of what the next steps in the POPLA appeal are and what happens if we don't add any comments after the 7days from today have expired?
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on February 03, 2026, 11:02:48 am: Hi(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji112.png)

Just an update.

POPLA Appeal Letter sent this morning. Just put "other" as reasoning for appealing.

screenshots taken, and confirmation email received. :)

we'll post up the response once received.

Thank you all for your support and help here with this so far. ;)
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on February 02, 2026, 01:03:57 pm: Morning

Just trying to send the POPLA Appeal letter on the POPLA website.

Should we select "I was not the driver or the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking" this has a sub section stating

(you were not the driver at the time of the alleged improper parking)

this option then asks "can you upload any evidence to support our position"

so thinking we should attach a further PDF copy of the POPLA Appeals letter??

or should we avoid this option completely and just select "other"???

There's also an "additional Information" part of info gathering questions that states are for "data analysis" that states can be left blank, but if you start them, you can't erase.

So should we just keep this simple and just use "other" then add the POPLA Appeals letter, a photo of the signage and let them get on with it??
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on February 01, 2026, 04:20:46 pm: Got our draft updated, but not sure if we need all 5 points in our REPs?

Need to get this off tomorrow so any help or advise is gratefully appriciated.

1. The NtK is not strictly PoFA compliant as there is no "invitation", nor any synonym of the word, for the keeper to pay the charge.

Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that the notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The wording must clearly convey this invitation, and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient.

The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation could render the notice non-compliant. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

As the PCN is not fully compliant, the keeper cannot be liable for the charge. I, as the keeper, have no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
9(2)(e) specifies that the NtK must present the two legs of 9(2)(e)(i)and(ii) as a specific 'legal choices' separated by the word 'or' - meaning that it should read as a complete sentence which offers the keeper a choice - their NtK contains no such wording.
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 (Para 9(2)(e)(i) requirement but not present on the Euro Car Parks NtK)
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 (Para 9(2)(e)(ii) requirement)
The information must be presented in this manner to be compliant ie in one paragraph. Compliance cannot be achieved, for example, by placing the information at random points throughout the NtK since this would not present the keeper with the legal choice which 9(2)(e) requires.
Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) 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;”
Euro Car Parks’ NtK simply claims “the vehicle was not authorised to parked at Windmill Lane-Cheshunt.”
The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered Windmill Lane Cheshunt at 15:12:38 and departed at 15:27:46”. And states “time in Car Park 0 hour(s) 15 minute(s)
At no stage do Euro Car Parks explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.
Euro Car Parks NtK states “we are using cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay”. It is not in the gift of Euro Car Parks to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.
By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Euro Car Parks are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
I require Euro Car Parks to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

----------------------
2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:
''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.
Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £100, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

(Fig 1 or See page 3 of ECP Appeal Rejection Letter dated 4th Jan 26)

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:
http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

---------------

3. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question.
There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

The Notice to Keeper states:
“On 18/11/25 the vehicle: xxxxxxx entered Windmill lane-Cheshunt, at
15:12:38 and departed at 15:27:46 on 18/11/25.”
These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By EuroCar Parks own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed.
Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Paragraph 21.3 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.
I require ECP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

----------------------------------

4. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for.

The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from
Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.
The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because these carparks signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and
Consumer law.
The Euro Car Parks’ sign states:

“We are using automatic number plates recognition and or handheld cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates to monitor and enforce the above terms and conditions”

Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices. The only reference to Parking Charge Notices on Euro Car Parks’ sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead merely states (see fig1 or page 3 of ECP Letter dated 4th Jan 26)
In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68:
Requirement for Transparency:
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a
consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
and Paragraph 69:

Contract terms that may have different meanings:
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different
meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.
Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent’:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

Misleading omissions: 6. - (1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading
omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph
(2) -

(a) the commercial practice omits material information,

(b) the commercial practice hides material information,

(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner
which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless
this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is
likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he
would not have taken otherwise.''

5. No evidence of Landowner Authority

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.
It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on January 30, 2026, 11:18:51 am: Quote from: DWMB2 on January 30, 2026, 11:03:26 am
I would repeat my previous advice.
Quote from: DWMB2 on January 28, 2026, 11:36:25 am
Don't rely on links - work on the assumption that the assessor will not click them. For images, include the image directly in your appeal document.

Thank you, was wondering if it was best to use the image that ECP had put in the rejection letter...shall we just reference it as "see page 3 of ECP letter dated 4th Jan 26" ???
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: DWMB2 on January 30, 2026, 11:03:26 am: I would repeat my previous advice.
Quote from: DWMB2 on January 28, 2026, 11:36:25 am
Don't rely on links - work on the assumption that the assessor will not click them. For images, include the image directly in your appeal document.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on January 30, 2026, 11:00:31 am: The date on the ECP appeal rejection letter with the POPLA code is 4th Jan 26 so we're trying to get the POPLA appeal off to them by Tuesday 3rd Feb 26.

As this is a new site the signage is probably new too but we've embedded the earlier link give here as figure 1 in the POPLA appeal letter.

https://ibb.co/RG3S6Q3b

not sure if its worth adding in a comment/or referencing that in ECP's appeal rejection letter, they state that there was a console on site to enter the vehicles registration details on??? yet no mention of where to find the said console??

It's defiantly not at the Tesco store, so not sure if anyone has come across the issue of failing to use a "console" to register vehicles number plates or if POPLA will be interested in knowing about these options in an Appeal made to them??

Is it worth adding a paragraph about the "console" into the Appeal letter?

https://i.postimg.cc/D0VmxH4J/Euro-Car-Parks-Appeal-rejection-letter-4th-Jan-26-redacted.png

Here's the draft so far...

1. The NtK is not strictly PoFA compliant as there is no "invitation", nor any synonym of the word, for the keeper to pay the charge.

Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that the notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The wording must clearly convey this invitation, and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient.

The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation could render the notice non-compliant. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

As the PCN is not fully compliant, the keeper cannot be liable for the charge. I, as the keeper, have no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
9(2)(e) specifies that the NtK must present the two legs of 9(2)(e)(i)and(ii) as a specific 'legal choices' separated by the word 'or' - meaning that it should read as a complete sentence which offers the keeper a choice - their NtK contains no such wording.

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 (Para 9(2)(e)(i) requirement but not present on the Euro Car Parks NtK)

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 (Para 9(2)(e)(ii) requirement)

The information must be presented in this manner to be compliant ie in one paragraph. Compliance cannot be achieved, for example, by placing the information at random points throughout the NtK since this would not present the keeper with the legal choice which 9(2)(e) requires.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) 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;”

Euro Car Parks’ NtK simply claims “the vehicle was not authorised to parked at [Windmill Lane-Cheshunt].”

The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered Windmill Lane Cheshunt at [15:12:38] and departed at [15:27:46]”. And states “time in Car Park [0 hour(s) 15 minute(s)] At no stage do Euro Car Parks explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.

Euro Car Parks NtK states “we are using cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay”. It is not in the gift of Euro Car Parks to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Euro Car Parks are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

I require Euro Car Parks to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

----------------------
2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £100, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

https://ibb.co/RG3S6Q3b
(figure 1)

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

---------------

3. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question.
There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

The Notice to Keeper states:
“On 18/11/25 the vehicle: xxxxxxx entered Windmill lane-Cheshunt, at
15:12:38 and departed at 15:27:46 on 18/11/25.”
These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By EuroCar Parks own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed.
Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Paragraph 21.3 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.

I require ECP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

----------------------------------

3. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be
used for.

The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from
Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.
The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by
ANPR cameras for.

Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because these carparks signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and
Consumer law.

The Euro Car Parks’ main sign in the Windmill Lane-Cheshunt car park (see Figure 1) states:

“We are using automatic number plates recognition and or handheld cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates to monitor and enforce the above terms and conditions”

Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices. The only reference to Parking Charge
Notices on Euro Car Parks’ sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead merely states (see Figure 1):

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68:
Requirement for Transparency:

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a
consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is
expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

and Paragraph 69:

Contract terms that may have different meanings:

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different
meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.
Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not
security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the
operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent’:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

Misleading omissions: 6. - (1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading
omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph
(2) -

(a) the commercial practice omits material information,

(b) the commercial practice hides material information,

(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner
which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless
this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is
likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he
would not have taken otherwise.''

4. No evidence of Landowner Authority

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: jfollows on January 28, 2026, 12:12:57 pm: Their deadlines are strict, but when they tell you “28 days” they mean “33 days” in general, so as long as you don’t go past the unwritten but strict deadline you should be OK. I think it’s 33 days from the date of issue of the code.

They won’t give you an extension of time.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on January 28, 2026, 12:11:07 pm: Thanks DWMB2 & Intercity125

We'll make some changes and repost here.

Is POPLA appeal deadline dates strict? we think we've got till Friday to submit, but might need some more time over the weekend to get it sent off for Monday 2nd Feb or Tuesday 3rd?

Is it worth asking for an extension of time with them?
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: DWMB2 on January 28, 2026, 11:36:25 am: Make sure you are referencing the correct Codes of Practice in the correct places. The BPA Code of Practice has been replaced by the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (although there's a grace period for updating signage).

Quote from: Bella54 on January 28, 2026, 11:02:16 am
http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN
Don't rely on links - work on the assumption that the assessor will not click them. For images, include the image directly in your appeal document. If you must use links, definitely don't use Imgur, as that is no longer available in the UK without using a VPN.

Quote from: Bella54 on January 28, 2026, 11:02:16 am
The Euro Car Parks’ main sign in the ………………..car park (see Figure 1) states:

“We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and
calculate the length of stay”
Does it? The signs you've shown us say:
"We are using Automatic Number Plate Recognition and/or Handheld cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates to monitor and enforce the above terms and conditions"

Quote from: Bella54 on January 28, 2026, 11:02:16 am
“This car park is patrolled. Please observe the following conditions to avoid a parking charge notice of £85”
Which sign says this? The ones you have shown us refer to a charge of £100, and do not appear to mention the car park being patrolled.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: InterCity125 on January 28, 2026, 11:30:53 am: This is coming up a lot lately with Euro Car Parks on this and other Facebook groups.

I would place the non-compliant PoFA NtK as the first point as this is objective and immediately fatal to the operators case.

There are addition points to their non compliance with Para. 9(2)(e) which you should mention, namely;

That 9(2)(e) specifies that the NtK must present the two legs of 9(2)(e)(i)and(ii) as a specific 'legal choices' separated by the word 'or' - meaning that it should read as a complete sentence which offers the keeper a choice - their NtK contains no such wording.

I put this in a post yesterday so it may help.

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 (Para 9(2)(e)(i) requirement but not present on the Euro Car Parks NtK)

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 (Para 9(2)(e)(ii) requirement)

The information must be presented in this manner to be compliant ie in one paragraph. Compliance cannot be achieved, for example, by placing the information at random points throughout the NtK since this would not present the keeper with the legal choice which 9(2)(e) requires.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on January 28, 2026, 11:02:16 am: Hi

attempting to put a POPLA appeal together which needs to be sent off to them by Friday.

As we're unsure of who the land owner might even be in this case yet, we've started with the signage as our 1st point.

Any advise on how to Draft this into some sort of order would be gratefully appreciated, so we can get it to be sent off.

1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £85, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Please see the parking sign notice for …………….. below.

---------------

2. The NtK is not strictly PoFA compliant as there is no "invitation", nor any synonym of the word, for the keeper to pay the charge.

Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that the notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The wording must clearly convey this invitation, and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient.

The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation could render the notice non-compliant. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

As the PCN is not fully compliant, the keeper cannot be liable for the charge. I, as the keeper, have no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) 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;”

Euro Car Parks’ NtK simply claims “the vehicle was parked at [enter location].”

The NtK separately states that the vehicle “entered …………… at [xxxxx and departed at [xxxxxxx]”. At no stage do Euro Car Parks explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.

Euro Car Parks NtK states “we are using cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay”. It is not in the gift of Euro Car Parks to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Euro Car Parks are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

I require Euro Car Parks to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

----------------------

3. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The Euro Car Parks Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two
images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question.
There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

The Notice to Keeper states:

“On 28/5/24 the vehicle: xxxxxxx entered ……………, at
xxxxxx and departed at xxxxx on xxxxxxx.”

These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By EuroCar Parks own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry
and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed.

Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements
of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.

I require ECP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

----------------------------------

4. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be
used for.

The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from
Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use
ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car
parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.
The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by
ANPR cameras for.

Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because these carparks signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and
Consumer law.

The Euro Car Parks’ main sign in the ………………..car park (see Figure 1) states:

“We are using cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates and
calculate the length of stay”

Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera
images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is
absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way
related to Parking Charge Notices. The only reference to Parking Charge
Notices on Euro Car Parks’ sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices
being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead
merely states (see Figure 1):

“This car park is patrolled. Please observe the following conditions to avoid a parking charge notice of £85”

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68:
Requirement for Transparency:

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a
consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is
expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

and Paragraph 69:

Contract terms that may have different meanings:

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different
meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.
Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not
security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the
operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent’:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

Misleading omissions: 6. - (1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading
omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph
(2) -

(a) the commercial practice omits material information,

(b) the commercial practice hides material information,

(c) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner
which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless
this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is
likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he
would not have taken otherwise.''

5. No evidence of Landowner Authority

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on January 23, 2026, 08:25:35 pm: Quote from: roythebus on January 12, 2026, 12:50:22 pm
I don't think the land was ever railway land. I'm quite familiar with the station car parkign, it's on the west side of the railway from the level crossing heading south. that is clearly signed as a private car park these days and of curse is now "relevant land" under the December 2025 changes to railway bye-laws.

Thanks.

We've had a good look around ftla at successful POPLA appeals and have found some helpful points to use.

so we're trying to put together the POPLA Appeal, as ECP has sent a POPLA code, but not sure which point to start with or the order to draft the points in as this is a "not Authorised to park" NTK issue?

1.NO evidence of Land Owner Authority
2.Ntk not POPLA compliant
3.APNR
4.Signage

Any guidance or suggestions of how best to structure the POPLA Appeal so we can get this sent off in time please. (trying to avoid putting a mishmash together) ;D
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: roythebus on January 12, 2026, 12:50:22 pm: I don't think the land was ever railway land. I'm quite familiar with the station car parkign, it's on the west side of the railway from the level crossing heading south. that is clearly signed as a private car park these days and of curse is now "relevant land" under the December 2025 changes to railway bye-laws.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on January 12, 2026, 12:08:05 pm: New link

https://i.postimg.cc/D0VmxH4J/Euro-Car-Parks-Appeal-rejection-letter-4th-Jan-26-redacted.png
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on January 11, 2026, 04:38:36 pm: You have to scroll down to page 2 and "Load full Resolution"

Dont know why its loaded like this but try this link instead??

https://i.ibb.co/7dHdxzN5/Euro-Car-Parks-Appeal-rejection-letter-4th-Jan-26-redacted.png
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: jfollows on January 11, 2026, 04:10:30 pm: The notice you just posted is unreadable.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on January 11, 2026, 01:14:23 pm: Hi All (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji112.png)

As expected, we've received a rejection letter from Euro Car Parks with a POPLA Code & 14 days to pay £60 discounted rate, but 28 days from 4th Jan 26 to submit an Appeal to POPLA.

https://ibb.co/cSPSKvXH
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: InterCity125 on December 10, 2025, 11:38:19 am: As suspected, based on the signage, there is never any offer of contract made and as such there can never be a breach of contract because no contract was ever formed.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on December 10, 2025, 11:04:38 am: Links to signage Images on site.

https://ibb.co/S4dnr3T1

https://ibb.co/n8syKX13

https://ibb.co/gLDDQxs2

https://ibb.co/wFLb0F6W

There's also a couple of signs round the back area of the site ironically charging £7.50 24 hour parking.

https://ibb.co/2YydCTxB
https://ibb.co/yc363mVW
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on December 10, 2025, 10:44:47 am: Sent the Appeal letter as attachment PDF with "see PDF full Appeal letter in the wording box. Have kept a screenshot of Euro car parks website "Appeal Received"

Got an automated reply:

"Thank you for contacting Euro Car Parks, we acknowledge receipt of your appeal. Appeals received with full and concise information will ensure that your parking charge notice is placed on hold and there will be no increase in the amount. Please note that we will endeavour to respond to your appeal as soon as possible, however a full written response may take up to 28 days from receipt of the request.
Please ensure that you check your junk mail folder in case our response is diverted there, we recommend that you add this e-mail address Noreply@eurocarparks.com to your safe senders list to ensure receipt.

Please Note: This is an automatically generated notification. Please do not reply to this email – any replies will NOT be attended to.

Regards

Parking Charge Notice Department"
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on December 09, 2025, 11:02:44 pm: Thank you for the link.

Sorry

Minimised the browser zoom on the PC which helped to see the sites full screen :-[
we could only see the pay £60 now option >:(

The Appeal letter wont fit fully in they're word box either, so should we attach a PDF copy as evidence and type in "see attached full letter of Appeal"??
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: b789 on December 09, 2025, 01:48:57 pm: What is wrong with the appeals portal?

https://www.eurocarparks.com/appeal-a-parking-charge/
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on December 09, 2025, 11:56:34 am: Thanks All for your input here, looks like this one is going to be a hotspot for challenging.

Just been on Euro car parks to try to appeal on line and it only has payments section, no appeal area.

PCN at the bottom has a postal address in London NW1 6QL so looks like it's a postal appeal ::)

Do we have 28 days from the date of issue (25th Nov 25) +2 days to submit the Appeal?

and is it worth holding off till the signage & land Owner details can be confirmed or obtained?
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: mickR on December 09, 2025, 11:25:47 am: open the "Gmaps" link @Mustek has posted.
click on "didi deedee" there is a close up of the signs.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: b789 on December 09, 2025, 11:23:51 am: If the land was originally or even still owned by a TOC or Network Rail, you may want to check and see if it was ever covered by Railway Byelaws and if so, were those byelaws ever revoked by statute.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: mickR on December 09, 2025, 11:14:02 am: I doubt tesco have bought that site and in particular the car park. I would make an enquiry to LR. it might take a while but as b789 says the NTK is not pofa compliant anyway.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on December 09, 2025, 09:44:55 am: Quote from: Mustek on December 09, 2025, 09:15:23 am
The site is too new to check against Land Registry/Ordnance Survey, all I'm getting is the railway-owned buildings on the "Railway Approach" street on that postcode and a few retail units.

Quick GMaps check shows that the parking that butts up against the Tesco Express is a residents-only carpark, so the land-owner will probably just fob you off if you can find who it is.

Gmaps link (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tesco+Express/@51.7031425,-0.0238453,-14a,32.2y/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sCIABIhDsuWL5Yh1mjDQnFuSO51AR!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2Fgps-cs-s%2FAG0ilSyl6GfmUvovCcfnendrWFAys4Dij9iP8GkZbPdjapdplgKIcHti9_P5XbK0fd1jUg7-HcBYyfwHWxTWZtMPYnaL8ZrBH1rPst93f2EQMmtBxGgiT_BKXRs1mjejYn3D-xEhU15cNuZeQwhg%3Dw203-h152-k-no!7i4000!8i3000!4m16!1m8!3m7!1s0x48762100313a098b:0x7d0bb86b3aceac77!2sTesco+Express!8m2!3d51.7032937!4d-0.0247353!10e5!16s%2Fg%2F11w80754ch!3m6!1s0x48762100313a098b:0x7d0bb86b3aceac77!8m2!3d51.7032937!4d-0.0247353!10e5!16s%2Fg%2F11w80754ch?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) - Signs are on the right-hand side of the photo.

If those signs are still current, they are of a forbidding nature, so that might help your case.

This is just to add info, please follow the advice of the experts.

Thank you Mustek, (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji106.png)

Yes this is the site.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Mustek on December 09, 2025, 09:15:23 am: The site is too new to check against Land Registry/Ordnance Survey, all I'm getting is the railway-owned buildings on the "Railway Approach" street on that postcode and a few retail units.

Quick GMaps check shows that the parking that butts up against the Tesco Express is a residents-only carpark, so the land-owner will probably just fob you off if you can find who it is.

Gmaps link (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tesco+Express/@51.7031425,-0.0238453,-14a,32.2y/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sCIABIhDsuWL5Yh1mjDQnFuSO51AR!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2Fgps-cs-s%2FAG0ilSyl6GfmUvovCcfnendrWFAys4Dij9iP8GkZbPdjapdplgKIcHti9_P5XbK0fd1jUg7-HcBYyfwHWxTWZtMPYnaL8ZrBH1rPst93f2EQMmtBxGgiT_BKXRs1mjejYn3D-xEhU15cNuZeQwhg%3Dw203-h152-k-no!7i4000!8i3000!4m16!1m8!3m7!1s0x48762100313a098b:0x7d0bb86b3aceac77!2sTesco+Express!8m2!3d51.7032937!4d-0.0247353!10e5!16s%2Fg%2F11w80754ch!3m6!1s0x48762100313a098b:0x7d0bb86b3aceac77!8m2!3d51.7032937!4d-0.0247353!10e5!16s%2Fg%2F11w80754ch?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) - Signs are on the right-hand side of the photo.

If those signs are still current, they are of a forbidding nature, so that might help your case.

This is just to add info, please follow the advice of the experts.

Edit: Actually found the address of the Tesco under a different postcode: EN8 9AW, UPRN is 148016581, info is available on Land Registry.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on December 08, 2025, 10:40:01 pm: Thank you b789.

we'll get some pic's from site next time we're over that way & post them here.

Re: Plan A-finding out who the Landowner is, We'd be interested to get this information as the store was of no help, We've even considered getting in touch with Tesco Head Office and raising a complaint with them directly, but wondered if the land registry would divulge it, as the site is new??(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji848.png)

We'll make a start on Plan B in the mean time.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: b789 on December 08, 2025, 02:03:06 pm: Can you get a photo of the signs with the actual terms of parking on them? According to the Notice to Keeper (NtK), the alleged contravention is that the vehicle was not authorised to "park". Very often, a "no unauthorised parking" sign is not correctly worded to be able to form a contract with the driver.

However, the 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.

No initial appeal will ever succeed and in these cases, POPLA is pretty useless. Where it will be concluded, if a POPLA appeal is unsuccessful (likely), is after they get DCB Legal to issue a county court claim for debt and it is defended with our template defence. In due course, it would either be struck out or discontinued (greater than 99.9% certainty).

Try and find out who the landowner of the car park is and get them to get it canceled. That is Plan A. Plan B is the following: 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.

Plan C will be a POPLA appeal and Plan C is the guaranteed win explained above.
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Brenda_R2 on December 07, 2025, 05:01:49 pm: Quote from: Bella54 on December 07, 2025, 12:48:46 pm
Hi again :)

Received this NtK last week.

Revisited the site, which is adjacent to a relatively new Tesco express store (currently no Google street views)to try to gain some clarity and ask the store manager to cancel the PCN.

It seems the adjacent parking is run by Euro Car parks which has various parking bays including one Blue Badge holders bay which is where the vehicle was parked, with Blue badges visible and correctly displayed, as the store was being visited for working purposes.

After discussing the matter with the stores team leader and leaving NTK telephone contact details for the store manager to discuss cancelling the PCN with, (no reply or contact yet & don't think they'll bother to address it :-\ ) it seems the site is not currently owned by Tesco and they have no reach to cancel the PCN's and have even had staff and other customers being caught in this same costly predicament since the store opened. :'(

Is this a POPLA appeal situation? and what date do we need to send the Appeal by?

https://ibb.co/nNKJyD1y

From the knowledge I have gleaned here recently from other much wiser posters, the notice is POFA deficient so can be easily defended if you do NOT reveal the driver (here, on Facebook, Tiktok, Twitter, anywhere).

But please wait for the more knowledgeable posters here to give you more substantive advice :)
Title: Re: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: jfollows on December 07, 2025, 03:36:15 pm: I can’t read the notice you have posted, it’s not high enough resolution for me to be able to read anything.

Oh, there’s a higher resolution option which works. Please ignore my post.
Title: Euro Car Parks PCN NtK windmill Lane Cheshunt Not Authorised Park to Blue Badge Disabled Bay
Post by: Bella54 on December 07, 2025, 12:48:46 pm: Hi again :)

Received this NtK last week.

Revisited the site, which is adjacent to a relatively new Tesco express store (currently no Google street views)to try to gain some clarity and ask the store manager to cancel the PCN.

It seems the adjacent parking is run by Euro Car parks which has various parking bays including one Blue Badge holders bay which is where the vehicle was parked, with Blue badges visible and correctly displayed, as the store was being visited for working purposes.

After discussing the matter with the stores team leader and leaving NTK telephone contact details for the store manager to discuss cancelling the PCN with, (no reply or contact yet & don't think they'll bother to address it :-\ ) it seems the site is not currently owned by Tesco and they have no reach to cancel the PCN's and have even had staff and other customers being caught in this same costly predicament since the store opened. :'(

Is this a POPLA appeal situation? and what date do we need to send the Appeal by?

https://ibb.co/nNKJyD1y