Free Traffic Legal Advice

Many thanks

Ocean Boiling device back in the garage.

Hi All

A person known to me has received an invoice from Euro Car Parks - I can see from this forum that they rarely "do court" so happy to fight it. For "**** and giggles" I asked an AI to write the POPLA appeal. This is what it came back with after some kicking to point out the car was leased and so the original NTK went to the leasing company. Would be interested to know what the brains of the forum think of what it produced:


POPLA Appeal – Parking Charge Notice [insert number]

I am the hirer/lessee of the vehicle and I appeal this Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:

1. Failure to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (No Hirer Liability)

This vehicle is subject to a lease agreement. Therefore, the provisions relating to hire vehicles under Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 apply.

The operator has failed to meet the strict requirements to transfer liability from the driver to the hirer.

In particular, the Notice to Hirer was not accompanied by the mandatory documents required under Paragraph 13(2), namely:

A copy of the Notice to Keeper
A copy of the hire/lease agreement
A copy of any statement of liability signed by the hirer

These are statutory requirements. In the absence of these documents, the operator cannot transfer liability to the hirer.

As such, I cannot be held liable for this charge.


2. The operator has failed to demonstrate that a compliant Notice to Keeper was served

The operator has not provided evidence that the Notice to Keeper issued to the registered keeper fully complied with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

In particular, the Notice to Keeper fails to specify the “period of parking” as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a). Instead, it relies solely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps, which do not constitute the period of parking.

ANPR timestamps record vehicle movement, not parking time, and do not account for:

Time spent entering or exiting the site
Time spent searching for a parking space
Mandatory grace periods

Therefore, the Notice to Keeper does not comply with POFA and cannot be relied upon to establish keeper liability.


3. No evidence of landowner authority

The operator is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land or that it has been granted authority by the landowner to issue parking charges and pursue them in its own name.

A mere site agreement or witness statement is insufficient. A full, unredacted contract with the landowner must be produced.


4. Inadequate signage and no evidence of a contractual agreement

The operator has not provided evidence that the signage at the site was sufficient to form a legally binding contract with the driver.

The burden of proof rests with the operator to demonstrate:

That signage was clearly visible at the entrance and throughout the site
That the terms and conditions were prominently displayed
That the parking charge was clearly communicated

In the absence of such evidence, no contract can be established.


5. ANPR system reliability and accuracy

The operator relies solely on ANPR evidence. I require the operator to demonstrate that the ANPR system is:

Accurate
Maintained correctly
Synchronized with correct time settings

Without such evidence, the reliability of the timestamps cannot be assumed.

Conclusion

The operator has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and has failed to establish liability.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

In summary the person concerned received an NTP / PCN from Smart Parking. Appealed it (admitted they were driving!). Still gathering all the info - they mentioned they "were sent to a portal" - appealapcn dot com (claims to be AI powered) - did search the forum and can find no mention of them but they didn't do anything with it (don't know who sent them to this and it appears they may not have heard back about the initial appeal).

Debt recovery plus have sent them 2 letters, both for the same alleged "offence" but with different reference numbers

From reading the forum the advice would appear to be to ignore all communication unless / until a Latter of Claim arrives.

Any other advice appreciated.

Ok so in a move that is as much of a surprise as The Pope being revealed as a Catholic, they have rejected my appeal. So I now have to decide whether to cough up the £65 by next Monday or go to adjudication.

The reason given was:

"The circumstances detailed in your letter do not amount to grounds for cancellation of this PCN and are not supported by the evidence.

The driver should no enter the box junction until the exit is clear

The contravention occurs as soon as any part of the vehicle stops on the box and a PCN correctly upheld even if the driver believes the vehicle was not causing an obstruction. Motorists have a responsibility to ensure that they allow enough space between their own vehicle and the vehicle ahead. They must have an adequate field of view, and enough time to respond to road signs and markings"

They then include a link to view the "offence".

It appears to be a "template" rejection, especially considering the fact that I did not send a letter to them (it was all done online / electronically). The location is here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5044282,-0.2183783,3a,75y,82.54h,81.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swl81_gqd9rw7I454hugdcQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D8.991744647729064%26panoid%3Dwl81_gqd9rw7I454hugdcQ%26yaw%3D82.54396344722184!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAwNy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

As always, all thoughts / advice welcome.

I have been reading up on this as much as I can - one thing appears to be the council has falsely claimed that "The contravention occurs as soon as any part of the vehicle stops on the box" when the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 clearly lists exceptions to this.

4th car to enter nearest the camera. Have shown this to the driver and he was conscious of the cyclist coming in from his left and so didn't aim for the space near the kerb. Obviously it wasn't the day they were "cut up"!

Also although the car is moving forward very slowly at one point before coming to a complete stop I reckon 10 seconds at most stationary.