Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: htatla on December 28, 2025, 05:57:16 pm
-
Thanks - Complaint sent via POPLA website! :)
-
POPLA Complaint.
POPLA Code -
Assessor Name - Jamie Macrae.
Dear Lead Assessor,
I have recently received a response from POPLA regarding a PCN issued by Euro Car Parks.
In the appeal I clearly pointed out that the NtK was not PoPA compliant as it clearly fails to meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) / 9(2)(e)(i) / 9(2)(e)(ii).
Complaint Point.
Failure to correctly assess compliance with PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e).
In my appeal I made it crystal clear that the NtK was not PoFA complaint.
In his response, Jamie Macrae states;
"the PCN in question has the necessary information"
This is demonstrably false - all we need to do is examine the NtK in order to reveal the missing components.
In his response, Jamie is very careful not to engage in any of my evidence relating to the non-PoFA compliance - instead of engaging with the evidence, the Assessor quickly skips past the requirements of 9(2)(e) even though I specifically raised this non-compliance as an appeal point.
This gives the impression that the Assessor recognised that the wording was not present - if the wording was present then he would have simply pointed it out in order to demonstrate compliance?
In my opinion, the Assessor recognises that engagement with the evidence would result in a demonstration of non-compliance rather than the outcome he was keen to project.
TO BE CLEAR - This complaint point specifically relates to non compliance with paragraph 9(2)(e) and, as such, there is no need for you to demonstrate compliance with other paragraphs - please stick firmly to the issue of compliance with 9(2)(e).
PLEASE ALSO NOTE - that the requirements of 9(2)(f) do not satisfy the requirements of 9(2)(e) so please do not suggest that wording required by 9(2)(f) loosely satisfy the requirements of 9(2)(e).
PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) specifies the following;
THE NOTICE MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver AND invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
I have capitalised certain words deliberately - notice in particular that the word AND requires that the notice set out the required statement wording AND invite the keeper to blah blah blah OR blah blah blah.
The wording (from the legislation), "The notice must state", can have no other interpretation - the notice must state this wording to be compliant.
So, in order to be compliant, we are simply looking for the prescribed sentence of mandatory text immediately followed by a two limbed legal invitation to the keeper with the two limbs separated by the Boolean operator "OR".
So, be my guest - with all due respect, this is not particularly difficult;
Please specifically point out, on the parking operators NtK, the sentence of mandatory wording which the notice MUST STATE, "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver".
Please DO NOT skip over this request - go ahead and point out the sentence?
Here's a clue - the wording is not present.
Following on from that, please point out the required mandatory two limbed invitation to the keeper to either pay the unpaid charges or provide alternative driver details? Don't forget the Boolean operator (OR) which must separate the two limbs - these are the precise requirements of 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).
Once again, the two limbed invitation is not present - if the two limbed invitation is present then please demonstrate that fact and specifically point them out rather than skipping over my request.
As I am sure you can see, the operators NtK is NOT actually compliant is it? And Jamie has completely overlooked the requirements of 9(2)(e)?
This is incredibly disappointing given that my evidence led him directly to the non compliance - there really is no excuse.
I await your response with interest.
Best wishes,
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
-
Happy to write complaint by email although I don’t see it doing much - if you guys can express the key points I need to raise where they don’t follow the law. Else I will wait for the usual letters
-
Or, in the alternative, save the cost of the stamp by using email.
-
The Assessor has once again misrepresented compliance with PoFA.
In your opinion, would appear POPLA don't agree.
OP you can complain to POPLA but I'd save the cost of the stamp personally and sit back saving your energy for when the letter of claim arrives.
-
Assessor Name: Jamie Macrae
-
The Assessor has once again misrepresented compliance with PoFA.
We can write a complaint.
Who is the Assessor?
-
The POPLA Appeal was rejected by email. Details Below
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: xx xx
Assessor summary of operator case:
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to overstaying the maximum period allowed.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal.
• The parking operator’s Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet all of The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements, so the keeper cannot be held liable. Partial compliance is not enough, there will be no admission who was driving, and no interference or assumptions can be drawn, the parking operator has replied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
• The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, not pursued under a poor interpretation of the law of agency, the NTK in question can only hold the driver liable.
• The parking operator has no realistic prospect of success in pursuing the charge or the registered keeper in County Court, and the PCN should therefore be cancelled. A judge would be likely to dismiss the case as an abuse of process.
• The signage at the site states it is for customers only, for providing an offer of parking under the terms, it is not proven by the parking operator that the registered keeper was a customer of the Peel Centre, if the registered keeper was not a customer, no contract with the parking operator can be formed.
• If no contract was formed, the parking operator can only have a potential position of trespass; however, the parking operator has no claim this invoice due to two reasons, they have not authority to pursue the invoice in its own name unless it has the specific landholder rights to do so, they would like the parking operator to produce evidence of this right, at court if need be.
• There was no loss to either the parking operator or landowner, where the parking operator may seek damages from the registered keeper.
• The signage inadequate, they dispute it is prominently displayed for drivers to read and understand the parking terms, compared to the large wording regarding maximum stay three hours.
• The meaning on the term customer, is not defined or made clear on the signage and is objectively verifiable.
• They doubt the full parking terms and conditions were properly visible and brought to the attention of the drivers. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and expands on their grounds of appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal.
The parking operator’s signage at the site states: “WELCOME TO THE PEEL CENTRE CUSTOMERS ONLY…FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE…MAXIMUM STAY 3 HOURS…”. The images of the vehicle captured upon entry and exit confirm the time the vehicle was on this land for three hours 26 minutes, exceeding the allowable time by 26 minutes.
I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified.
Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper and is [RK Name]’s liability for the PCN I will be considering as the keeper of the vehicle.
This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice.
This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.1 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms.
Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to park, such as those mentioned above. The parking operator has provided a series of the site, along with a map with positions of signs highlighted. As the appellant has failed to provide any photos of the site for consideration I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied.
Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions.
It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. The motorist became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking, waiting, or staying at the location for three hours 26 minutes. As the appellant has failed to provide any photos of the site for consideration, I must accept the evidence to be a true reflection of the site. As the car park has a maximum allowed time of three hours, which is applicable to all motorists, it falls upon the motorist to make reasonable accommodations and depart from the premises before surpassing the allotted time.
The signage at the site is clear that exceeding the time limit, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By exceeding the time limit, the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist exceeded the allowable time at the site and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site.
As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Although the appellant has commented on the parking operator's evidence, I have not identified any details that significantly affect my evaluation of the PCN. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.
END OF POPLA RESPONSE
------------------------------------
Appreciate your support for the next steps
KR
-
Agreed, their “evidence” is just an untrue statement.
-
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.
-
Thanks - See ECPs Evidence Doc - Click here (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hjwr4u1ayp6ozhpj494a7/The-Peel-Centre-Bracknell_2410176109_Redacted.pdf?rlkey=hurxc0i4prrmbrfunuxl8zmgz&dl=0)
-
Post up the ECP evidence.
It's highly likely that their original NtK wasn't PoFA compliant.
-
POPLA have reviewed my appeal and are asking for my comments for ECPs Provided Evidence
I have less than 7 days to provide my "comments"
Please can you guys advise what i do here?
-
Can I get advice for wording for the POPLA appeal ? What am I asking them Vs ECP appeal ?
-
Yep.
-
Have received their standard appeal rejection. Please advise on the next steps, assume this is would be a POPLA appeal?
-
Appeal sent
FYI the ECP online appeal form had reached its max characters, cutting off at the last paragraph, so had to cut down wordings where possible (but retained the overall jist etc)
Are you telling me there is no option to upload a file? All you had to do was upload the appeal, as is, as a pdf and just say in the text box: "See attached pdf file". Or, you can use their "Contact Us" webform and select the "General Enquiry" option and upload the file there.
As for the inevitable, eventual flow of some debt recovery letters, so what? Feel free to use them as hamster bedding or kindling or whatever. Even if. it was 100's of letters, which I seriously doubt it was anything even close to 10% of that number, they mean nothing. Debt recovery letters are meaningless. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything as they are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver. They are a powerless third party and all they can do is try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
With ECP you will likely get 2-4 from DCBL before they pass it to their sister company DCB Legal and you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC0 from them before they eventually issue the N1SDT Claim Form through MCOL.
Nobody who follows the advice given here pays a penny to ECP and all we ask is that you show us the N279 Notice of Discontinuance when it arrives.
-
Search the forum for ECP cases.
ECP usually uses DCB Legal, who discontinue cases before they are required to pay the court fee, and in the interim you just play the paperwork game, for which you will get advice here.
-
You will get bombarded with debt collectors letters, that's how this works. They won't accept arguments over whether the detail of the PCN is allegedly compliant or not, with POFA (except if the 14 days hasn't been adhered to) and it's unlikely POPLA or IAS would adjudicate in favour of the motorist based on such nuanced appeal criteria. Once appeals are exhausted debt collector letters start, followed by a letter of claim and court proceedings. Usually they give up when they have to pay the court fee but that's months away.
Advice on here basically boils down to:
1. Try to get the land owner to cancel it.
2. Appeal to the PPC, if the PPC is BPA and you have a decent appeal reason, e.g. genuine customer, keying error, breakdown it might get cancelled but depends on the PPC.
3. Tough it out through the debt collectors letters.
4. Engage with the court process and hope they discontinue.
5. If they don't then you can try and unpick the wording of the PCN in court.
-
Appeal sent
FYI the ECP online appeal form had reached its max characters, cutting off at the last paragraph, so had to cut down wordings where possible (but retained the overall jist etc)
Just for keeping in mind when helping the next poor soul! :)
Let’s see what comes. I am just a worried as the last time this happened to me Horizons sent me 100 odd letters in the post, from them/debt agency asking for money and with trumped up charges.
That then went to court - which I won. But it was a stressful ordeal. Happy to head to Court this time, just don’t want them bothering me at home by post or other!
However that time I 100% ignored and did not make an appeal, so hopefully different this time
-
Thanks so much - will send the verbatim appeal in the morrow
-
Any ECP PCN is easily defeated if you follow the advice you receive here. However, you first have to get the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree notion that the 40% mugs discount is anything you should even be considering. That is precisely what they hope for, someone who is ignorant enough to think they are getting a bargain because of the discount!
This is simply a speculative invoice from an unregulated private larking firm and if you think you must pay it, especially because they are offering a discount, please give us your address as I could flood you with speculative invoices and offer you even grater discounts and I could profit from that.
As a matter of interest, was the driver a customer at the Peel Centre? I ask because if they weren't, there is no contract formed if they weren't. The sign you have shown us is capable of forming a contract, but only in a limited and fact-dependent way.
For someone who is a Peel Centre customer, the sign reads as an offer of parking on stated terms. It identifies the operator, states the conditions for parking, and states the charge that will be issued if those conditions are not complied with. A driver who parks and remains can be said to accept those terms by conduct, so a contract is capable of being formed with a customer.
However, the sign also uses “CUSTOMERS ONLY” language that is arguably prohibitive. If the driver is not a customer, the wording can be read as not offering parking to them at all. On that reading, there is no contractual offer for a non-customer to accept, so no contract is formed. The position then looks more like an allegation of trespass, which a parking company cannot pursue in its own name unless it has specific landholder rights to do so (it will not have that). In trespass, only damages for loss can be claimed and in this case, there is no loss.
Even where a contract is theoretically possible, the sign can still be challenged on enforceability in the usual ways, such as whether the parking charge term is sufficiently prominent (it isn't) compared to the large maximum stay wording, whether the meaning of “customer” is clear and objectively verifiable, and whether the full terms were properly brought to the driver’s attention at the point they were deciding whether to park.
Any initial appeal is never going to be accepted. Even a POPLA appeal is unlikely to succeed. If it does, great, all done but if it doesn't, it isn't binding on the Keeper and this would 99.9% for sure be won after they issue a county court claim and it is defended with our template defence. I can tell you that any claim issued by DCB Legal on behalf of ECP will either be struck out or discontinued before they are required to pay the £27 trial fee. However, that is many months down the line.
I repeat, as long as you follow the advice you receive here, you will not be paying a penny to ECP.
First step is to submit a minimal initial appeal which will get you a POPLA code once it is rejected. You can try and go to town with POPLA, for what it's worth, but as I said, there is not much chance that that would be successful.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ECP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
-
Wait for others more knowledgeable than me but the PCN looks defective in so far as, at least, it doesn't invite the RK to pay the invoice.
-
Hi all,
I have received a PCN Letter from Euro Car Parks demanding £100 due to the driver allegedly overstaying the 3hr allotted time limit by 26 minutes when parked in "The Peel Centre" Bracknell Shopping Centre Carpark
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and have its V5C doc
Date of Event: 13/12/25
Date of Letter: 18/12/25
40% Discounted Rate Deadline: 01/01/26
Link to PCN Letter (Dropbox link)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fd934cugc6nhxdsijai59/ECP-PCN.pdf?rlkey=985vvalq307kwkzqn9jz1he34&dl=0
Google Maps Location
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ifoJeRPQ52FnWNie7
Parking Signage
https://ibb.co/spSZ7cFC
I appreciate your advice in this matter