Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA assessment and decision
20/02/2026

Verification Code
*********

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Taylor-Jade Ryan
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as no valid pay and display or permit was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • A valid pay to park session was purchased • The machine only captured the last 3 digits of the registration • This is not a keying error but a failure of the equipment • No liability has been established • The signage on site is inadequate and is not compliant with the code of practice • No landowner authority The appellant has provided 1. A copy of the parking ticket purchased The above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
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 within 28 days. In this case, I have reviewed the PCN in question and it has the necessary information required, and so the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. In this case, Sarah Jane Booth. The appellant has provided evidence that a ticket was purchased by the driver, but due to a machine malfunction, the full registration was not printed, despite it being entered. It is important that a motorist enters their full vehicle registration when making payment, to allow the system to calculate if the correct fee has been paid against the amount of time the vehicle spends within the car park, which is captured and calculated by the cameras. If the correct registration is not entered, and no payment can be located for the specific vehicle that is parked, the system will identify that a breach has occurred due to failing to pay, and a PCN is issued. The parking operator has provided a list of other vehicles that were able to make payment on the day in question, and these payments were made against the full vehicle registration, therefore, I am satisfied that the error did not lie with the technology on this occasion, and that this was human error. Given the appellant provided evidence of a payment made, albeit to the incomplete registration, they did consider a keying error. The Appeals Charter is a statement within the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice which details how certain circumstances should be handled by the parking operator. This details when a parking charge should be cancelled, and when a parking charge should be reduced to £20, when an appeal is based on an error or mitigating circumstances. Clause F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a parking operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate evidence being provided to allow them to claim back costs that they have incurred for having to send the PCN out, due to the motorist’s error. Such as if a driver has paid the tariff or registered their vehicle but they have swapped characters, have digits missing or have entered the wrong registration completely. In this case, the operator reduced the charge to £20 for a period of 14 days as per the requirements of the code, but this offer was rejected as an appeal was raised with POPLA instead. This leaves the full charge amount now payable. Clause 3.1.3 of the Single Sector code of practice advises the signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and use a font and contrast that is visible and readable. The parking operator has provided images of the signs on site, along with a site map confirming their placement. This evidence shows that the terms are appropriately placed, and I am satisfied that the terms of parking, along with the consequences are adequately brought to a driver's attention. This is clearly evidenced in the fact the driver made a payment on this day; therefore, I am satisfied the signs were seen and understood. Clause 3.1.4 of the Code states signs informing drivers that a parking charge is applicable must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main text. On paid parking sites, the charge must be in a font no smaller than the tariffs or numbers. The signs confirm that the charge amount of £75 is in comparable size, and a bold font. I agree this meets the requirements of this clause. The appellant appeals on the basis the parking operator doesn’t own the site and has no contract to manage parking there. Clause 14 of the relevant version of the Code says that, assuming they don’t own car parks, parking operators must have the authority of landowners to manage parking on them and issue charges for breaking any terms. The parking operator states in its response to the appeal that it has relevant authority to manage the car park, along with a copy of the redacted contract. It’s provided evidence to show it’s installed numerous signs as well as an automatic camera system on the car park. On balance, I’m satisfied that the operator had authority to manage the car park on the date in question. The signs are clear that payment must be made to cover the full parking duration, or a charge of £75 will be issued. Whilst there is no dispute the driver had all intentions of paying to park correctly, it cannot be ignored that the fee paid was not valid as it was not made against the full, correct vehicle registration as required. Accordingly, I conclude that the charge was issued correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Thanks for your help guys. Here's an update. ECP have provided evidence to POPLA and I have been invited to comment on their evidence. I've included below some of their key defenses, they also provided lots of photos of signage and the memorandum of understanding between BVRLA and BPA.

Do you have any guidance for what I should write as a comment to this evidence?

Thanks,

Bob

INCORRECT VRM

ECP provided an image of the data input into the ticket machine which reveal a bunch of 7-digit registrations with my 3-digit registration in the middle. They then say:

Drivers' details are censored due to the Data Protection*
• As the driver failed to enter their full registration while making the payment is a breach
of the code terms and conditions of parking and failure to purchase a valid pay and
display ticket:


UNIDENTIFIED DRIVER

XXXXXX then appealed the PCN and declined to provide the details of the driver on the day
in question. As no other details have been provided, the liability for the notice remains with
XXXXXXX as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

THE PROCESS

Our PCN (Parking Charge Notice) is the first communication with the registered keeper – this is referred
to as the Notice to Keeper or Notice to Owner
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
Please be advised once the registered keeper has been sent the PCN (NTK/NTO) if there is no
response, payment, appeal, serviceable address of the driver – ECP process a Notice To Keeper – this
is a “reminder letter” and sent in reference to the PCN (NTK/NTO) that has not been responded to.
If we are in receipt of a serviceable address of the driver – the PCN (NTK/NTO) is re-issued.
If the registered keeper is in receipt of the PCN (NTK/NTO) and has passed to the driver and the driver
appeals – we will respond to the appeal strictly following the code and ensure any/all communication is
sent to the driver (we would not at this stage re-issue the PCN)
We have been advised that the above is standard practice for all private car park operators in regard to
PCN (NTK/NTO) issued on Automatic Number Plate Recognition car parks.

SUMMARY

The appellant was given the opportunity to pay £20 for a period of 14 days as it is advised
in Annex F of the BPA Code of Practice:
• By appealing to POPLA the opportunity to pay £20 is no longer available, the full amount
for the PCN is payable.
• Please note that the VRM entered was OTA instead of FJ60OTA, therefore the PCN was
issued correctly.
• The car park in question is on private land and upon entering such land vehicles are
subject to the terms and conditions of parking as shown on the signage. This signage
quite clearly states that if your vehicle is in breach of the terms and conditions of the car
park then a parking charge notice (PCN) will be issued.
• On entry to private land, it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and
ensure that your vehicle has been correctly parked. Any vehicles found not adhering to
the signage will be issued with a parking charge notice (PCN).
• Please be advised that there are a number of signs around the car park indicating the
restrictions of the site and it is the responsibility of the driver to read them when parking.
• Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the
registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days
beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid,
under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’), Euro Car Parks
have the right subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it
was parked so much of that amount which remains unpaid.

Thank you. I have found an example of an ECN POPLA appeal and adapted it using the hooks that you had provided. I include it below. Will it suffice?

Thanks again for your help and guidance.

----------

POPLA Appeal
Verification Code: xxxx
Parking Charge Ref: xxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxx
Operator: Euro Car Parks
Appellant: The Keeper

I am the Keeper of the vehicle and I submit this appeal on the following grounds:

1. Valid Pay to Park Purchased - Equipment failed to record to full VRM
2. No Driver Liability – No Admission of Driving; Operator Attempting to Hold an Unidentified Party Liable
3. The signage fails to comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii).
4. The operator is put to strict proof that its signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024).
5. The operator is put to strict proof that it holds a valid and contemporaneous contract with the landowner authorising the issuing of PCNs in its own name.

No evidence has been provided as to the identity of the driver, and no liability can transfer to the Hirer in the absence of PoFA compliance.

1. A valid pay-to-park session was purchased by the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.. The machine in the car park managed by Euro Car Parks recorded only the last three characters of the VRM, showing “OTA” on the receipt, whereas the full VRM is “J60OTA”. This is not a “gross keying error” by the driver but a failure of the equipment to record the full VRM. Euro Car Parks could have very easily verified the payment by cross-checking their payment logs for an unreconciled transaction against “OTA” at the material time.


2. No Driver Liability – No Admission of Driving; Operator Attempting to Hold the Wrong Party Liable

The Keeper has made no admission as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. No such admission is required, and no lawful presumption can be made. The operator is not entitled to infer, assume, or speculate that the Keeper was the driver.

This appeal is made strictly in the capacity of Keeper, and Euro Car Parks is fully aware that their ability to pursue the Keeper relies on strict compliance with Schedule 4, Paragraph 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As established in Section 1 of this appeal, ECP has not complied with the mandatory conditions of Paragraph 14. Therefore, they have no lawful basis to transfer liability to the Keeper.

Where liability cannot transfer, the only party potentially liable is the driver. However, where the driver has not been identified — and no lawful inference can be drawn — the operator is left without a liable party.

The law is unequivocal. PoFA does not permit a parking operator to simply pursue the most convenient or likely person. Liability must lie either with:

•The driver (if known or admitted); or
• The keeper but only if full and correct PoFA compliance has been achieved.

In this case, the Keeper is not shown to be the driver, and the operator has failed to meet the statutory gateway for pursuing the Keeper. Therefore, no party is lawfully liable, and the charge must be cancelled.

Appeal point #3 Conclusion

The Keeper has made no admission as to being the driver, and the operator has not complied with the strict statutory requirements needed to hold the Keeper liable under PoFA. As such, Euro Car Parks is attempting to hold an unidentified party liable in direct contravention of the statute. The charge is therefore unenforceable, and the appeal must be allowed.







3. The Signage Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) – The Parking Charge Was Not Given Adequate Notice

Euro Car Parks (ECP) has failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). These provisions state that, to be enforceable, a parking charge must be adequately notified to the driver at the time the vehicle was parked.

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(2):

“The reference in the definition of ‘parking charge’ to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).”

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii):

“Adequate notice” means 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.”

It is not enough for a parking operator to simply claim that signs were present. The sum being demanded must be clearly specified and prominent on those signs, and the signage must be adequate to bring that charge to the attention of drivers.

Why the Signage at Dominie Cross, Retford Fails to Meet These Requirements

The signage at this location falls far short of what is required to satisfy Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii). Specifically:

• The parking charge is buried in small print within a densely worded sign and is not legible or visible from a moving vehicle or from a reasonable distance.
• The signage does not specify the charge in a manner that is prominent or apparent to drivers at the point of decision (i.e. when entering or parking).
• The charge is not brought to the attention of the driver in a manner that could fairly be described as “adequate” under the statutory definition.
• There is no large, clear warning that a failure to purchase a pay-by-phone session will incur a specified charge.
• The charge is not immediately obvious, nor is it specified as a penalty for unauthorised parking in a conspicuous manner.

Accordingly, ECP is attempting to enforce a parking charge that does not meet the legal definition of a ‘parking charge’ under PoFA Schedule 4. The sum was not adequately notified, and therefore cannot be recovered from the driver (if known).

Relevant Standards and Best Practice

These defects also breach:

• The British Parking Association Code of Practice v9 (January 2024), Section 19.3 and Appendix B, which require that the parking charge must be prominently displayed and clearly legible, with core contractual terms (including the charge) being immediately apparent.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015, which mandates that any term likely to disadvantage the consumer (such as a £100 penalty) must be transparent and prominent.

This was reaffirmed in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the £85 charge was prominently displayed and therefore enforceable. The contrast with this case is stark: ECP’s charge is not prominent and would not withstand equivalent judicial scrutiny.

Appeal point #3 Conclusion

The signage at Dominie Cross, Retford fails to satisfy PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) because the charge was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver. As such, no enforceable parking charge exists, and the appeal must be allowed on this basis alone.

4. The Operator is Put to Strict Proof that its Signage Complies with the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024)

Euro Car Parks is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and is therefore required to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice Version 9 (January 2024). The operator is put to strict proof that the signage at Whale Bone Lane South – Dagenham fully complies with the relevant provisions of this Code.

In particular:

• Section 19.3 requires that signs must be clear and intelligible to drivers, and visible from a distance.
• Section 19.5 requires that the parking charge itself must be prominently displayed and not hidden within terms and conditions.
• Appendix B of the Code sets out minimum standards for font size, contrast, lighting, and the positioning of signage, such that drivers are given a fair opportunity to see, read, and understand the terms before parking.

The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with these requirements as they stood at the time of the alleged contravention, including:

• The exact wording and appearance of the signage at the site;
• A site plan showing the location and orientation of each sign;
• Evidence that all signs were clearly legible, properly positioned, and visible from all entry points;
• Whether the signs were illuminated or otherwise visible during hours of darkness.

Failure to provide such evidence should be taken by POPLA as confirmation that the signage was not compliant, and therefore no contractual charge is enforceable.

5. Strict Proof of Landowner Authority – No Locus Standi Without Full and Evidenced Rights

Euro Car Parks (ECP) is put to strict proof that it holds a valid, contemporaneous, and fully executed contract with the landowner (or a duly authorised agent) granting it the authority to manage parking, issue PCNs, and enforce those charges in its own name at Dominie Cross, Retford.

It is not sufficient for the operator to rely on:

• a generic witness statement;
• a short letter merely asserting that a contract exists;
• or any heavily redacted or undated document lacking legal specificity.

To establish locus standi, the operator must supply the full, unredacted contract, which must include all of the following:

• The full commencement and expiry dates of the contract, confirming the precise period for which authority was granted;
• Confirmation that the agreement was in force on the date of the alleged contravention;
• The full terms and conditions originally agreed between the operator and the landowner or agent, including the exact terms to be imposed on drivers;
• A clear definition of the land covered by the agreement, including plans or maps where applicable;
• Explicit confirmation within the contract that ECP has the authority to:

• manage the site;
• issue Parking Charge Notices;
• and pursue payment and legal action in its own name;

Details of any material amendments to those terms since the contract’s inception, including:

• What those changes were;
• When they were agreed;
• And confirmation that the contract was formally varied and remains binding in its amended form.

This level of documentary scrutiny is essential to confirm that any contractual terms relied on in the signage (and any related PCN) were valid and properly authorised at the relevant time. POPLA is therefore respectfully reminded that it must not accept generic, redacted, or vague evidence in support of such a fundamental claim of legal standing.

Applicable Code of Practice

While the signage at the site is governed by the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024), all other operator conduct — including contractual authority — is now governed by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires that operators:

“...must on request provide evidence of the written authorisation from the landholder (or their appointed agent) to manage the relevant site... including the scope, terms, and effective dates of such authority.”

Legal and Evidential Position

The principle that a private parking operator must hold either a proprietary interest in the land or a clear, legally binding agreement conferring enforcement authority has been repeatedly confirmed by the courts. Notably, in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, it was made clear that a mere licence to access the land is insufficient for contract formation and enforcement.

If Euro Car Parks cannot supply all of the above in full and unredacted form, then it has no legal standing to issue or pursue any PCN at this location, and the appeal must be allowed in full.

Conclusion

In summary, Euro Car Parks has failed to meet the statutory requirements necessary to hold the Hirer liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Hirer is non-compliant; the signage does not give adequate notice of the charge; no admission has been made as to the identity of the driver; and the operator has not provided evidence of either signage compliance with the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024) or valid landowner authority as required by the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

On all grounds presented, the charge is unenforceable, and POPLA is invited to allow this appeal in full and direct the operator to cancel the Parking Charge.

Thank you for confirming. The appeal is submitted and will be processed within 28 days.

Bob

Hi all

We've just received a PCN from Euro Car Parks for parking in a pub car park without a ticket. I knew that a ticket had been bought but when it was retrieved from the car I discovered it only had a partial registration plate on it. This must have been entered incorrectly either by human or machine failure.

I have attached the PCN and the parking ticket itself.

I have not appealed yet. Would that count against me if it goes to court?

Here are links to both sides of the PCN and both sides of the parking ticket.

PCN p1: https://ibb.co/MDjGxgqv
PCN p2: https://ibb.co/qMyDSMHX

Ticket front: https://ibb.co/SDhLRGqD

Ticket back: https://ibb.co/DPdgjP5z

Thanks for any advice.

Bob

Amazing, thank you.

The second reply I got was to my response to their letter of Claim using the text in reply 15 in this thread.

I copied in info@ukcps,net and  I got a replay saying they could not accept complaints by email.

Like I say, RMG have offered to pay the charge but I wanted to give you guys all the info.

Thanks for your help.

---------

Thank you for your email.

Unfortunately, we cannot accept Appeals, Transfer Liability or Complaints via email.

Please complete your appeal or Transfer Liability on our website ukcps.com/submit-appeal/ or send it in writing to UKCPS Ltd, City West Business Park, Building 3, Gelderd Road, Leeds, LS12 6LN. Our appeals process can be found on the correspondence you have received from us.

Please note, we will not enter into further correspondence via email.

Kind regards,
UKCPS Ltd

That's amazing thank you. I'd be totally lost and a nervous wreck without the help that you have provided.