Show Posts - smc

The POPLA appeal assessment is in -- it's been successful! So no need to face for the DCB Legal farce.For reference, I've copied in full the assessor's statement below. Much of the first bit repeats the facts that I had given in my appeal, but the bold/red bit at the bottom (NB. this formatting is mine) is the key reasoning behind the conclusion.QuoteI am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to evidence that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. The parking operator has issued the PCN to the appellant because the P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking. The appellant quotes the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (The Code) Section 5.1(a) and says the Consideration Period was inadequate for the circumstances. They say in this case, a parent and child space was desired and when a family was seen returning to their car to depart, the driver waited to park in this space as there was a baby in the car. They say due to the busyness of the car park, and parking in a space appropriate to needs, the driver parked the car just before 12:20, and a ticket was immediately purchased from the machine. They say at this point, the Consideration Period ended and the parking period began. The also point out that the purchased ticket stated clearly in a large bold font that it was valid until "15:20." The appeal reasons have led me to consider The Code which sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.1 states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case, Annex B provides a consideration period of 5 minutes. Whilst I acknowledge that Section 5.1 says the operator should take into account the time required for a driver to identify and access a parking bay appropriate to their needs and the impact of the volume of traffic within the controlled land. I wish to point out that the parking period is defined in Section 2.24 of the Code as the length of time that a vehicle remains on controlled land, which includes the consideration period. Additionally, Annex B makes it clear that the Consideration period is not a free period of parking. However, the appellant has explained that they believed the parking period commenced at the time of payment and whilst the signage refers to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras it does not explain that the parking period is calculated from the time they enter and exit the site. Therefore, I consider that it is reasonable that the appellant believed that their parking time began at 12:20, at the time they paid for their parking and that the period prior to this was a consideration period. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area. In accordance with Annex B the grace period at this site is 10 minutes. The appellant has exited the site at 15:28 which was 3 hours 8 minutes after paying for their stay, therefore I consider the appellant left the site within the grace period and complied with the parking contract they entered. As I have determined the first 14-minutes of the time spent on site was a consideration period, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly when factoring this in to my decision. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.Thank you b789 for all your support in guiding me through this process.

ECP have uploaded the operator evidence pack to the POPLA appeal -- a 34-page document.

• The document confirms a Grace Period has been used, but does not mention anywhere or respond to the Consideration Period or any other part of the appeal (i.e. it is a standard template with the car pictures/ticket payment logs added).
• The document states that the NtK is POFA compliant without providing direct response to the appeal, i.e. it states: The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by both the BPA and the IPC, and we have confirmation that our PCN (NTK/NTO) and has been approved as compliant with POFA. The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by Gladstones Solicitors who specialise in assisting private car park operators – legal advice and pre legal advice with regards signage and adhering to POFA and both code of practice

I have 7 days in which to respond to this evidence pack with comments.What is advisable here?Something short e.g. "This evidence pack confirms that a Grace Period (appeal point 4) was taken into account. It does not address points 2 and 3 of the appeal at all, and insufficiently responds to point 1."

Thank you. Small amendments made as per your points and will submit now.Unfortunately the one piece of evidence no longer held is the parking ticket itself -- this was discarded before the NtK was received. (If need be in due course, I'll go back and buy another ticket to demonstrate the format.)

I'm planning to submit the POPLA appeal tomorrow before I go away for a few days.My (slightly updated from previous posts) draft appeal text follows. If anyone is able review and point out any faults or omissions that would be greatly appreciated!QuoteI am the registered keeper of the vehicle shown in this PCN received from Euro Car Parks on 26 July 2025. I dispute any and all liability for this parking charge, and appeal it in full.The following non-compliance on the part of the car park operator in issuing the NtK is noted:

• Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet PoFA requirements. The NtK does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, so the keeper of the vehicle liable cannot be held liable for the charge. PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) states “The notice must— (e) 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.” This is a mandatory requirement: the NtK must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the charge if the driver is not identified. The PCN does not do this.Partial or even substantial compliance with PoFA 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. The NtK can only hold the driver liable.
• Consideration Period inadequate for the circumstances - As per Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) 5.1(a), a consideration period of "the time required for a driver to identify and access a parking bay appropriate to their needs" should be allowed. Upon entering the car park at 12:06 (as per CCTV), the driver could not initially find any available spaces, and was one of a number of queuing cars awaiting a space. As spaces became available, queued cars were moving into them.PPSCoP 5.1(a) notes the following should be considered: "For example, a driver seeking a Blue Badge parking bay or a parent and child parking bay, waiting for another vehicle to vacate a bay, returning to the vehicle to check the VRM, queuing at a payment machine, etc". In this case, a parent and child space was desired and when a family was seen returning to their car to depart, the driver waited to park in this space as there was a baby in the car.Due to the busyness of the car park, and parking in a space appropriate to needs, the driver parked the car just before 12:20, and a ticket was immediately purchased from the machine.
• Misleading and inaccurate information - The purchased ticket stated clearly in a large bold font that it was valid until "15:20". There was no adequate signage making it clear that the times printed on tickets were inaccurate and instead car park entry times (possibly with an unknown and undisclosed consideration period) would be used.Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contractual terms must be transparent and fair. Where signage forms the basis of a contract, any ambiguity or lack of clarity renders the terms unenforceable. In a "Pay and Display" car park (a large sign exists in this car park stating the "Pay and Display" heading), the ticket forms a key part of the contractual terms as understood by the consumer. In this case, the signage failed to explain that the time printed on the ticket was inaccurate and should be ignored.
• Grace Period not taken into account - As per PPSCoP 5.2, a grace period of 10 minutes applies to all car parks open to the public. This is "a period of time in addition to a parking period where all terms and conditions have been complied with, when no parking charge can be issued". The driver returned to the car at the end of the parking period, using the expiry time noted on the ticket of 15:20. It took 8 minutes to safely stow the baby and pram in the car and drive to the car park exit. The car park CCTV recorded the car leaving at 15:28.

Following on from immediately previous post:

• Point 1. Add in: PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) is not met, as the NtK does not "invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges".Is this correct?? I see that my original attachments have been removed so here are links to the NtK letter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17-MazM7AoMjaRwkKfFHKvDCn9ZLN0u7G/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/178hNPsspKnGtBs7ziw563Ocv63gG6H2V/view?usp=sharing
• Point 2. In final sentence it should read "busyness" not "business".

Rejection letter was received 26 Aug by email. POPLA website states that appeal must be received within 28 days, i.e. before 23 Sep, although I've seen on this site than an additional 5 days is given.Any guidance received before then for the appeal greatly received. I understand this may well still fail and proceed to next stage anyway!

Would the following be a suitable POPLA appeal?-------I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.The following non-compliance on the part of the car park operator is noted:

• Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements. The NtK does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, so the keeper of the vehicle liable cannot be held 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. The NtK can only hold the driver liable.
• Consideration Period inadequate for the circumstances - As per Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) 5.1(a), a consideration period of "the time required for a driver to identify and access a parking bay appropriate to their needs" should be allowed. Upon entering the car park at 12:06 (as per CCTV), the driver could not initially find any available spaces, and was one of a number of queuing cars awaiting a space. As spaces became available cars were moving into them. PPSCoP 5.1(a) notes the following should be considered: "For example, a driver seeking a Blue Badge parking bay or a parent and child parking bay, waiting for another vehicle to vacate a bay, returning to the vehicle to check the VRM, queuing at a payment machine, etc". In this case, a parent and child space was desired and when a family was seen returning to their car to depart, the driver waited to park in this space as there was a baby in the car. Due to the business of the car park, and parking in a space appropriate to needs, the driver parked the car just before 12:20, and a ticket was immediately purchased from the machine.
• Misleading and inaccurate ticket information - The purchased ticket stated clearly in a large font that it was valid until "15:20". There was no adequate signage making it clear that the times printed on the ticket were not accurate and instead car park entry times (possibly with an unknown and undisclosed consideration period) would be used.
• Grace Period not taken into account - As per PPSCoP 5.2, a grace period of 10 minutes applies to all car parks open to the public. This is "a period of time in addition to a parking period where all terms and conditions have been complied with, when no parking charge can be issued". The driver returned to the car at the end of the parking period, using the expiry time noted on the ticket of 15:20. It took 8 minutes to safely stow the baby and pram in the car and drive to the car park exit. The car park CCTV recorded the car leaving at 15:28.

I have a rejection to my appeal. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ] So next step is POPLA. What should I write at this stage? Morally I am fighting this based on the ground of my original post -- i.e. that once the time the driver took to find a space in a busy and full car park is properly taken into account, then there was no overstay. If that means the best way to approach is via the non-compliance with the PoFA 2012 requirements then so be it.

Thanks. Submitted!I'll update here once we have the appeal rejection outcome.

Thanks. Appealing as "Registered keeper".Looks like the ECP form has an character limit on the appeal form. I can either (a) cut down the text you've given slightly [but I know you advised against this!], or (b) submit a sentence saying "See attached letter" and assume it allows a PDF upload on the next screen [the form states: "On the next screen you will be able to upload supporting information, such as photos, receipts or proof of purchase"].The following text would fit, I have removed the last part of the first para and the word "complete" in the final line to squeeze in!QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.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 waste of time and cancel the PCN.Is wording as amended ok for option (a), or would you advise approach (b)?

Thank you for all this information. As far as I can see, the only way to appeal is via their web form (https://www.eurocarparks.com/appeal-a-parking-charge/), rather than sending an email which I would have a copy of. Is this correct?Many thanks

Hello,I received a CCTV PCN Notice to Keeper in the post today for a 22 minute overstay in a car park 10 days ago and would like some advice on whether to challenge it or not.Timeline

• As per PCN, Car park entry is stated as 12:06.
• However, the small car park was full and so the driver did not manage to park in a space and turn off engine or get out of car for over 10 mins -- other cars were also manoeuvring and departing so it was clear a space would become available.
• A 3hr ticket was purchased from the machine at 12:20. This would have been within a couple of minutes of parking (i.e. very short walk to machine, wait turn, walk back to car to check reg plate(!), back to machine to key in and pay). The printed ticket stated explicitly an expiry time of 15:20.
• The driver returned to the car at approximately 15:20. A baby was strapped in and a pram put in the boot (the car was parked in a baby/pram space which the driver had waited for).
• As per PCN, car park exit is state at 15:28.

The driver accepts that the parked time in the actual space was probably around 5 minutes over the 3hr, but less than 10 mins overstay. During this overstay, the car was being loaded/unloaded. I understand that there is a 10 minute allowed grace period as per BPA website (Euro Car Parks is a member).The remainder of 22 min overstay was awaiting a space. It was not clear that this time had to be paid for (unsurprisingly, the full terms and conditions were not read in the car park...), particularly after buying a ticket with the registration plate which explicitly stated the 15:20 departure time.Note: The PCN doesn't actually state anywhere that a ticket was purchased, only the total time in the car park of 3hr22. I assume the 3hr ticket has been correctly processed and hopefully the driver will find this to prove the reg plate was indeed correctly entered.Are there grounds for appeal here?Evidence

• The car parking ticket has possibly now been discarded (the driver is looking) but the card sales receipt from the machine has been found showing the 12:20 payment time.
• PCN attached to post.
• Car park: https://www.google.com/maps/place/51%C2%B016'31.8%22N+0%C2%B031'27.0%22E/@51.275538,0.5241092,75m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d51.275491!4d0.524168?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDcyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Thanks [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Massive thank you to cp8759 for your work towards the appeal and representation.We wouldn't have been able to navigate the process without your help!

Quote from: cp8759 on 05 Aug, 2023 18:25Would you like me to represent you at the tribunal?Thank you for offering, this is very kind and I would appreciate that a lot.I am writing the appeal text now based on the previous submissions. Is this draft below suitable?QuoteI challenge liability for PCN HR51148352 due to a lack of zone repeater signs. At first I had no idea why I received a PCN, but having looked into matters I now understand I was parked within the Harrow on the Hill Permit Parking Area.I entered the zone via Grove Hill junction with Peterborough Road, which is quite a busy junction with a zebra crossing 20 metres ahead. While I now understand there are Permit Parking Area signs at this junction on Peterborough Road, the visibility of these signs is poor. The near-side sign not visible due to the junction angle, and the off-side sign part obscured at the junction, and then visible for only a very short distance whilst approaching a zebra crossing. See attached image.The PPA itself is large, and I did not pass any repeater signs within the zone. By the time I came to a stop I had driven down the High Street and turned into West Road; I had travelled a quarter of a kilometre from the entrance of the zone and was on a much smaller road with considerably less traffic. I observed my surroundings and did not see any indication of any parking restrictions (either at the start of West Road, or along the road side, or in the form of yellow lines). I have photos demonstrating that there is no signage within sight of my parked car.A Permit Parking Area is different to a Controlled Parking Zone because, unlike a CPZ, the layout of a PPA does not include any bays or markings to alert a motorist to the restrictions. While previous tribunal decisions are not binding they can be persuasive and I note the significant parallels with Shetal Patel vs London Borough of Harrow (PCN HR51100560, Case 2220650316, 27 Oct 2022) and also Stephanie Martin v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (KI00006-1905, 21 June 2019), where in both cases the adjudicator found that in a large PPA covering several streets, the zone entrance signs alone are not adequate to support the restriction.I therefore contest that the alleged contravention did not occur.

Hello again. The reply is in today, a rejection, in a very similar wording to the previous letter.Unfortunately, this no longer appears to be the case: Quote from: cp8759 on 30 Jun, 2023 16:24Well the starting point is that, as long as you challenge the Notice to Owner within 14 days, the council will re-offer the discount (to discourage you from appealing to the tribunal), so you might as well carry on.So the full £110 cost is payable now. On the other hand this means there is nothing to lose by appealing to tribunal so this is now the obvious choice, so I would appreciate guidance please.Key part of letter (pages 1 & 2) below: [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ] I can appeal online again it looks like, so the question is what I should write?For context....I do think the signage where I entered the zone is particularly poor. From street view, one sign is not at all visible (immediately opposite junction) and the sign on the far side of the road is partly obscured by the Give Way sign at the junction, then visible only briefly when attention is on the zebra crossing (see the signs ringed in red below). I did not see any repeater signs between here and where I parked. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] Thank you for the guidance so far!Here the full letter received:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BdswQjcIgrDwODclSAhdAzIVjcVpMVzP/view (page 1 - Rejection of Representations)https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P_ibAZeQ7fuRANuOCjqunN_ooeTnUwHO/view (page 2 - Rejection of Representations)https://drive.google.com/file/d/1flJCGndgNcVQbQr06NCWb6y1khKk7eph/view (page 3 - Your right to appeal information)https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QzfduDn2aDteEK8ZHB8Pa5Sij69f8AKh/view (page 4 - Your right to appeal information)https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G6VQFTGDSMUnpcxEYuwPf5gHgNHXLtGX/view (page 5 - Notice of Appeal form)https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PQGPhj113Rh1FRXzDoLAVOSlrUJlbtfG/view (page 6 - Notice of Appeal form) [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Here's the confirmation page screenshot. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]