2
« on: January 13, 2026, 12:59:02 am »
Yeah oops haha
To whom it concerns,
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing as keeper only. I do not admit to being the driver, and the operator has not established keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). I contend that no breach occurred and the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) must be cancelled for the following reasons:
1. Failure to apply the mandatory grace period (BPA Code of Practice breach – primary ground)
The alleged overstay is only 10 minutes and 16 seconds after the paid-for 1-hour period expired. Euro Car Parks (a BPA member) must comply with the BPA Code of Practice, which requires a minimum 10-minute grace period at the end of the parking period to allow reasonable time to leave the site (clause 13.4 equivalent: “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action” – specified as a minimum of 10 minutes in paid sites).
Moreover, the parking ticket/permit (proof of payment for 1 hour) does not specify seconds in the expiry time — only minutes are shown. This means the precise end of the paid period cannot be determined to the second, so the actual excess could reasonably be as low as 9 minutes and 43 seconds (or less), well within the BPA Code of Practice’s minimum 10-minute grace period at the end of paid parking.
Additionally, a reasonable consideration period applies on entry (clause 13.2) for finding a space, reading signs, and paying. ANPR timestamps only show site entry/exit, not actual parked time or delays in exiting (e.g., queues, manoeuvring, traffic). The operator has not evidenced that they applied any grace period, nor proven that the excess was beyond a reasonable interpretation of the minimum 10 minutes (the 16-second alleged overrun is negligible/de minimis and falls “in the region of” the required grace, as accepted in similar POPLA decisions for short excesses).
No breach occurred after applying the Code’s grace provisions. The charge is invalid due to non-compliance.
2. No evidence of the period of parking (ANPR timestamps insufficient and unproven accuracy)
The operator relies solely on ANPR entry/exit times. These do not prove the actual period parked in a bay, nor distinguish from time spent driving within the site, queuing to pay/exit, or other non-parking activity. The operator must prove (on the balance of probabilities) a breach beyond grace — they have failed to do so. POPLA should require evidence of true parked duration; without it, the charge cannot stand.
Furthermore, ANPR systems can be inaccurate due to factors such as remote server delays, clock desynchronisation, or lack of regular checks. The BPA Code of Practice requires operators to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained in good working order, including regular calibration, adjustment, and synchronisation with the timer that stamps images/photos.
I require the operator to provide detailed records of the dates and times when the cameras at this site were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised (with the timer stamping the evidence), and generally maintained to ensure accuracy of dates, times, and seconds-level precision for the relevant period/date. Without this evidence, the ANPR timestamps cannot be relied upon, particularly for a minor alleged overrun of 16 seconds (which could be affected by even small calibration tolerances). This is especially relevant given precedents highlighting ANPR flaws (e.g., cases where lack of sync proof led to unreliable evidence).
3. Keeper liability not established (POFA 2012 non-compliance)
The operator has not proven full compliance with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper. I require strict proof of a fully compliant Notice to Keeper (e.g., exact wording on periods, warnings, and timelines). If any element is missing/inaccurate, no keeper liability exists.
4. Inadequate signage / unclear terms (no contract formed)
The operator must prove prominent, clear signage at the entrance and throughout the site (BPA Code requirements), with key terms (tariff, time limits, grace application, £100 charge) legible from a driver’s perspective before parking. I require the operator to provide dated, contextual photos (not generic/close-ups) showing visibility, lighting, and placement. If terms were not properly brought to attention, no contract was formed.
5. No landowner authority / standing to pursue charges
The operator must have contemporaneous written authority from the landowner to issue PCNs and pursue charges/litigation in their own name. I require production of an unredacted agreement (or chain of authority) confirming site boundary, permissions, and dates. Without this, the operator lacks standing.
Summary
The primary issue is the operator’s failure to apply the mandatory BPA minimum 10-minute grace period — the alleged 10 minutes and 16 seconds excess is within any reasonable application of the Code, especially given the ticket lacks second precision (possible under 10 mins) and ANPR limitations. The charge is disproportionate, non-compliant, and unenforceable. I request POPLA allow this appeal and direct Euro Car Parks to cancel the PCN.
If rejected, please explain fully how grace was applied and why the alleged minor overrun (16 seconds) justifies enforcement, especially considering the overrun could reasonably be as low as 9 minutes and 43 seconds or less.
Evidence attached:
• Copy of parking ticket/permit (showing no seconds in expiry time)
Show Posts
