Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Albamc on February 09, 2026, 05:22:43 pm
-
I have just received an email from POPLA which appears to tell me EuroCar Parks have withdrawn the charge. As this has saved me £100 I'd just like to say thank you all very much for your invaluable help and advice.
Wording as follows:
Dear xxxxxx
The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.
If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.
If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.
Kind regards
POPLA Team
Thanks again.
Al
-
Good point! And thank you. 👍
Appeal submitted with last paragraph edited as follows:
APPEAL POINT FOUR - That I believe that adequate time was purchased for the parking event which is causing this dispute - according to Just Park's own information entering the car park early is acceptable if the car is not actually parked in the space. So, the alleged overstay is in fact three minutes. Even considering a minimum grace period of ten minutes, the contractual dispute amounts to 1 minute - the operator's own evidence shows that the driver entered at 22.22 and left at 19.33 the following day - the 'time on site' was 21 hours and 11 minutes - 21 hours were paid for but 22 hours would have cost no more. Additionally, EuroCar Parks state in their correspondence that £12:80 was paid to JustPark when it was in fact £14.29. (Please see attached receipt.)
_________
Thank you all again and watch this space!
-
Given one of your points is about keeper liability, and relies on you not saying who was driving, choosing an option thsy says "I did ___" would be unwise. Just choose "Other", the text of your appeal lays out your reasons.
-
Once again, thank you very much for this. I am removing the bit about the complex multi-storey as it isn't, but otherwise am submitting verbatim.
Just one other query - I'm not sure what grounds to appeal to POPLA on? I have said 'I did not exceed the free period' and 'Other'. Is that ok?
Best
Al
-
Euro Car Parks POPLA Appeal
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question and, since the driver is not known to the operator, I will be making my representations purely as keeper.
I understand that, under 'POPLA Rules', I must set out my appeal points and the parking operator must rebut them?
Non compliance with PoFA 2012.
The parking operators NtK fails to comply with PoFA and, as a result, liability cannot be passed from driver to keeper.
In particular, the NtK fails to satisfy the legal requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).
This non compliance is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA.
Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) sets out 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;
So, in order to establish compliance, we must examine the operators NtK.
An examination of the legislation surrounding 9(2)(e) reveals that compliance is achieved by the setting out of the statutory wording immediately followed by a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'nominate another driver'.
So, to make this really easy, in the first instance, we are looking for the specific statutory wording set out in 9(2)(e) itself.
The legislation specifies that 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"
An examination of the operators NtK reveals that the statutory wording is not present.
This is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA.
However, to demonstrate my appeal point further, the NtK is then required to present a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' which 'invites the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver'
Please again note the exact wording of the statute;
That 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— blah blah blah
I have capitalised the word AND for good reason since the word AND demonstrates that compliance is only achieved if the operator is able to demonstrate that both legs of the AND logic have been satisfied.
Please note (and I apologise for sounding like a Junior School Teacher) that a 'warning to the keeper' is not 'an invitation to the keeper' - The words 'warn' and 'invite' have very different meanings and it is important that the correct wording is understood and applied when examining the NtK since other terms of the legislation require that 'a warning' be set out on the NtK - I understand that some POPLA assessors have become confused on this issue in the past and have inadvertently applied the reversed meanings - to be clear, a warning is not an invite.
So, back to the two limbed invitation to the keeper - when the NtK is examined the two limbed invitation is not present.
Nor is there an 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges' - this is also the specific requirement of 9(2)(e)(i).
So, as I am sure you can see, there are multiple compliance issues on the operators NtK.
So,
APPEAL POINT ONE - That the operators NtK does not contain the legally required mandatory wording required by 9(2)(e), namely; "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - I therefore ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the relevant NTK, to the POPLA Assessor, with an orange rectangle around the wording, "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - for total clarity, please do not include any other notations on the provided NtK - just the orange rectangle.
APPEAL POINT TWO - That, subsequent to the statutory wording required by 9(2)(e), the operators NtK does not set out the mandatory two legged invitation to the keeper to either pay the unpaid parking charges or nominate another driver - Once again, I ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the NtK which clearly sets out, in an orange rectangle, the two legged legal invitation which the legislation requires in order to be compliant.
APPEAL POINT THREE - That, in accordance with 9(2)(e) and subsequently 9(2)(e)(i), the NtK must 'invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges' - Once I again I ask the operator to prove that the NtK complies with this requirement - please demonstrate the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges' - Please do not confuse this 'invitation' with any 'warning to keeper' contained in the requirements of 9(2)(f).
If both the Parking Operator and the POPLA Assessor could use my numbered points then this would be very useful and should ensure that all appeal points are correctly addressed.
APPEAL POINT FOUR - That I believe that adequate time was purchased for the parking event which is causing this dispute - The Car Park in question is quite an awkward and large multistorey - the alleged overstay is 11 minutes and, when the minimum grace period is considered, the contractual dispute amounts to 1 minute - the operator's own evidence shows that the driver entered at 22.22 and left at 19.33 the following day - the 'time on site' was 21 hours and 11 minutes - 21 hours were paid for but 22 hours would have cost no more.
Many thanks and best wishes,
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
-
Thank you! Very much appreciated.
Best
Al
-
Yes, as expected.
We can come up with a POPLA appeal wording.
Give me a day or two.
We'll use the non PoFA and payment arguments along with the bot reply.
-
Afternoon all,
To the surprise of absolutely no one, Euro Parks have rejected my appeal. They have not dealt with any of the issues surrounding the Protection of Freedoms Act, the fact I have not identified the driver or the fact that the cost of parking 15 minutes earlier AND later would have been the same. They also state that £12.80 was paid to park when it was in fact £14.29, although I realise the discrepancy may be additional fees which they do not count. Their contention is still I owe them £100 for driving into the car park seven minutes early and leaving just over three minutes late.
Here are the files containing the letter I have received rejecting my appeal.
https://ibb.co/r2ndkvjG
https://ibb.co/r2VQQ16j
https://ibb.co/XkXHHQ2Z
Advice on my next move would, as always, be very much appreciated.
Best
Al
-
Just to say my appeal is now logged with ECP and I await its dismissal with an overwhelming sense of inevitability. 😊
This is the text of the appeal I sent (required shortening as ECP only allow a certain number of characters on the form:)
I am appealing this PCN as the registered keeper of EK71JXG. Parking was pre-paid on the Just Park App from 22:30 on 22/01/26 until 19:30 on 23/01/26, booking reference 99882108. I also note from a new search the price would be the same for a stay from 22:15 until 19:45.
Your PCN states the vehicle was parked ‘without a valid Pay by Phone transaction.' A valid Pay by Phone transaction WAS paid for through JustPark, and the car was not parked within a bay except during the time paid for.
I also note the Notice to Keeper does not meet the full requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). As a result, you cannot therefore transfer liability to the keeper, and, as I am under no obligation to do so, I will not be identifying the driver.
_______
Watch this space…
-
Appeal looks OK to me - expect them to reject it though!
-
I'm not convinced that would be the case, whilst operators must respect POPLA decisions in respect of individual cases, they are in theory free to disagree with their conclusions. Even POPLA assessors are free to disagree with the conclusions of another assessor in materially similar circumstances. If a case/cases went to court and were escalated to a sufficiently high enough court to create a precedent that their notices were non-compliant, and they continued to claim the contrary, that might be another matter.
OP - whilst it doesn't say so explicitly, your proposed wording opens the door to a presumption as to who was driving. I'd be more careful with the wording.
Fair points.
In my opinion the POPLA outcomes don't really change anything anyway - the NtK's clearly do not meet the requirements of PoFA and any claim made, by the parking operator, to the contrary would be demonstrably false since all one has to do is to examine the freely available NtKs.
Our recently submitted appeals clearly point out the failings and so far the operator has been unable / unwilling to rebut the submitted evidence.
It also seems to me that new legislation from the CMA has basically lowered the bar in terms of demonstrating fraud.
If the parking operator makes a false representation to a vehicle keeper which might cause that keeper to make a financial transaction then this could easily be regarded as fraud.
That's just my thoughts.
Any case would of course turn on its facts - in this instance it would probably hinge on when the operator would have reasonably discovered that their NtKs were non PoFA compliant - we have seen many cases where non compliance has been a central appeal point which is totally ignored in the operators responses - one might regard that behaviour as an acknowledgement of the problem.
-
Thank you Richard.
Here is my rewritten Appeal. Let me know if this is ok!
Dear Sir/Madam
I am appealing this PCN as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Parking was pre-paid on the Just Park App from 22:30 on 22/01/26 until 19:30 on 23/01/26, booking reference 99882108. I also note from a search conducted this morning that the price would be the same for a 22:15 stay on a Thursday night until 19:45 on a Friday evening.
Your PCN states the vehicle was parked ‘without a valid Pay by Phone transaction.' Therefore the grounds to appeal this PCN are that a valid Pay by Phone transaction was paid for through JustPark, and the car was not parked within a bay except during the time paid for.
Additionally, I also note the Notice to Keeper does not meet the full requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). As a result, you cannot therefore transfer liability to the keeper, and, as I am under no obligation to do so, I will not be identifying the driver.
In summary, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I believe this PCN was issued in error as parking had been fully pre-paid for the duration during which the vehicle was parked in Brunel House Car Park.
Yours faithfully
-
if ECP continued to maintain that their NtK was complaint (when chasing payments etc) then they'd probably be committing fraud by misrepresentation.
I'm not convinced that would be the case, whilst operators must respect POPLA decisions in respect of individual cases, they are in theory free to disagree with their conclusions. Even POPLA assessors are free to disagree with the conclusions of another assessor in materially similar circumstances. If a case/cases went to court and were escalated to a sufficiently high enough court to create a precedent that their notices were non-compliant, and they continued to claim the contrary, that might be another matter.
OP - whilst it doesn't say so explicitly, your proposed wording opens the door to a presumption as to who was driving. I'd be more careful with the wording.
-
You've effectively told them that you were there for longer than you paid for... Don't say 'I paid' as that implies you were the driver. Their PCN implies that you didn't pay for parking, rather than an overstay, so I would just say you paid for parking and give the reference. They will equate time on site to parking, so the bit about unpacking etc is not really relevant. It would be helpful to know what the parking charges structure is - e.g. your booking was for 21 hours but if the charge is the same for 12 - 24 hours then you were covered; if it increases for each hour, then you were over the paid for time. After the bit about POFA you could add that they cannot therefore transfer liability to you, the keeper, and, under no obligation to do so, you will not be identifying the driver.
All a moot point as they will most likely ignore it anyway!
-
Hello there, Below is a transcript of my intended Appeal. Please advice if there are any glaring ommissions, errors etc.
One other thing - the PCN was issued on 28/01, but I did not receive it until 07 or 08/02 (Can't be sure.) That only leaves three days until the '11 days' early payment option disappears which seems sneaky at best, illegal at worst. Luckily, I'm not paying it. Anyway - the appeal:
Dear Sir/Madam
I would like to appeal this PCN as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I also pre-paid for the parking as outlined below.
The driver entered Brunel House Car Park at 22:22 on 22/01/26 and proceeded to unpack the car. The car was moved into its space and up against a barrier at 22:30 as that was when the allotted time paid for with JustPark began.
The car was booked into the car park through the JustPark App from 22:30 on the 22nd to 19:30 on the 23rd for £14.29, booking ref 99882108
The next day the driver arrived back at the car at 19:25, five minutes before the allotted parking time was over and moved the car away from the barrier to repack it. The driver then drove out of the car park at 19:33.
Your PCN states the vehicle was parked ‘without a valid Pay by Phone transaction.' I dispute this as a transaction was paid for through JustPark, and the car was not parked within a bay except during the time paid for.
On reviewing the information regarding the PCN, the Just Park App stated the early arrival is ok as long as the vehicle was not actually parked before the Parking start time. Presumably this would also extend to the three minutes after 19:30 on the 23rd. Either way, a £100 fine for a three minute overstay within the confines of the car park is highly excessive.
Additionally, I also note the Notice to Keeper does not meet the full requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act (2012).
In summary, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I believe this PCN was issued in error as I had fully pre-paid for the duration during which the vehicle was parked in Brunel House Car Park.
Yours faithfully....
________________
Once again, many thanks for your help.
Al
-
Of course if POPLA deem ECP NTK to be non compliant, they might change it. But then again....carry on regardless as most people don't know to object!
If (when) POPLA finally admit that the ECP's NtK is non compliant, it should, in theory, mean that ECP will not be able to claim keeper liability when chasing other recipients.
There must be tens of thousands of non compliant NtKs in circulation - if ECP continued to maintain that their NtK was complaint (when chasing payments etc) then they'd probably be committing fraud by misrepresentation.
-
Just a quick note to say thank you for all this very helpful feedback. I will collate and attempt to compose an appeal which I will post here to be pulled apart before submitting!
Many thanks
Al
-
Of course if POPLA deem ECP NTK to be non compliant, they might change it. But then again....carry on regardless as most people don't know to object!
-
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/euro-car-parks-exceeded-3hr-time-peel-centre-bracknell/
That's one of them.
Scroll to post#14 to see the comments on operators evidence which sets out the failure points of ECP's NtKs.
-
I (hopefully) came up with an appeal wording which makes it very difficult for the assessor to 'skip over' the issue of non compliant NtKs as they have done in the past.
Do you have a link to that? Would make a good read and if it works could be a pinned item?
-
We currently have several appeals with POPLA based on ECP's non compliant NtKs.
We'll have to see what happens with those.
I (hopefully) came up with an appeal wording which makes it very difficult for the assessor to 'skip over' the issue of non compliant NtKs as they have done in the past.
-
It's fatal to EuroCar Parks case if the OP stays the course, denies everything and waits for documentation from Northampton, surely?
I'm not sure we can describe something as 'fatal' to their case that, to my knowledge, has yet to actually be argued in court.
As has been noted, there's a very good chance that ECP will eventually discontinue (a good part of the reason it has, as yet, not been tested in court)
-
AFAIK the lack of the invitation has not held any water with a parking co, POPLA, and especially not IAS. Don't think it has been tested in court as the parking cos (almost) always roll over first.
-
Yes, but ECP will lie, reject the appeal, force the original poster to appeal to the IAS who will also reject the appeal, and force the initiation of court proceedings. The idea being to frighten the original poster into paying them money.
If ECP use DCB Legal then, eventually, the case will likely be discontinued rather than paying the court fee.
Agreed that waiting for court documents from Northampton is a good thing.
-
There's no invitation for the keeper to pay or nominate the driver, but this is a fairly weak point.
It's fatal to EuroCar Parks case if the OP stays the course, denies everything and waits for documentation from Northampton, surely?
POFA has to be complied with in full for them to be able to successfully transfer liability from the driver to the RK?
-
In my opinion, the lack of relevant PoFA mandatory wording is a strong appeal point but it probably won't yield success until the matter is escalated to POPLA.
You should write an appeal making sure that you clearly state the appeal is being made purely as the registered keeper and as the person who pre-paid the parking - this doesn't mean that you were driving.
When you mention the driver you need to make sure that you only refer to him or her in the third person - ie the driver arrived / the driver left etc.
In your appeal to ECP you should set out your case as you have here - explain the arrival / departure times etc.
You can also mention that the NtK does not meet the full requirements of PoFA.
When that gets rejected, we can move onto the POPLA appeal.
Be sure to post up the appeal before sending.
-
There's no invitation for the keeper to pay or nominate the driver, but this is a fairly weak point.
It says the contravention is no payment, rather than overstay, which suggests there might have been some issue with the transfer of data / cash from Just Park?
Do you know what the parking terms at the site are? It doesn't show on Street View.
-
Just wondering if the PCN threw any light on the matter - especially the PoFA compliance issue mentioned by InterCity125?
Any help most appreciated.
Al
-
Thank you. Done.
-
You might want to hide your full name and home address, this is a public forum.
-
Here, hopefully, are the images:
https://ibb.co/Nn7RS4LL
https://ibb.co/b5RSvGrj
https://ibb.co/G4n3JkN0
https://ibb.co/DPJrV874
Many thanks
Al
-
The PCN needs to be posted up.
Recently, Euro Car Parks PCNs have not been PoFA compliant so there could be an easy way out here but we need to see the wording on both sides of the PCN.
-
You need an external host for the images, see the sticky: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Funnily enough the only parking ticket I have ever got was on Southsea seafront, whilst I went on the Hovercraft to visit family on the IOW!
-
Thank you for your reply Richard,
Unfortunately I cannot see how to attach an image - I don't have URLs for the images and I can't see another option in the icons bar?
1. Post edited
2. PCN avaialable but can't attach.
3. Also have photo from Just Park through whose App the space was booked. The address is Brunel House Car Park - Portsmouth PO13DR. Cost was £14.29. Message from the Just Park Bot also available.
4. I am the registered keeper and the PCN was in my name.
It is the nearest car park to the Isle of Wight Ferry terminal. The car was left there during a visit to family.
If there is an easy way to attach an image I'd love to know how!
Thanks again.
Alistair
-
1. Update your post to refer to 'the driver's not I.
2. Post up the PCN
3. Post up a street view link to the location - or some info on the parking terms / cost.
4. Confirm you are reg keeper and PCN arrived in your name?
Generally there is a 10min consideration period and 5 min grace period - but arguably there would be no consideration period as the parking was prepaid;and the grace period nay have been nullified by the early arrival. Parking cis generally consider time on site equal to parking so the unloading etc doesn't figure.
What was the car doing there - on the business of the landowner (e.g. hotel)?
-
Hi,
The driver prepaid for parking in Portsmouth in January from 22:30 until 19:30 the next day with Just Park. It was at Brunel House Car Park, which is apparently 'Private Land'.
The driver arrived at the car park at 22:22:34 and drove in, but did not park until the car was unpacked - after 10:30.
The next day the driver arrived back at the car at 19:25, and after moving the car (parked with boot against a barrier for extra security) repacked it and left at 19:33.
The driver just received a PCN from Euro Car Parks for £100 'The vehicle was parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction.' The driver paid for 21 hours but they are saying 'parked' for 21 hours and eleven minutes.
Having spoken to the Just Park Bot, the driver was informed the early arrival is ok as long as the vehicle was not actually parked (how we prove this is unclear,) but on leaving, the three minutes (during which the driver had moved the car, but again, how does either party prove that?) constitute an overstay which the driver can be fined for.
Considering the driver paid for 21 hours, and not only was the overstay a maximum of three minutes and thirty one seconds, this seems excessively strict.
The driver would very much appreciate any advice on whether there are grounds to appeal considering the vehicle was not actually parked before the allotted time. The driver accepts the car was not driven out of the car park until three minutes past the allotted time, but this appears to be an excessively strict and unreasonable application of the rules - especially as the driver had returned to my car before the allotted time had run out and moved it to open the boot.
Many thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Alistair