I am the keeper of the vehicle and I have just received a Notice to Keeper - copy attached.
The NtK arrived on day 14 and the alleged overstay was for 37 minutes.
This was a Sainsburys car park which used to be 120 mins free parking and was reduced to 90 minutes.
To be honest, the driver probably forgot that the time had reduced.
As It's ECP I presume I'm appealing to them fruitlessly that their NtK is non-compliant ?
"I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner. 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. 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 complete waste of time and cancel the PCN."
NTK Page 1 https://ibb.co/Jj4MJfv9
NTK Page 2 https://ibb.co/XrF04NPZ
Thanks in advance guys .....
OK, but in what way does it not comply with PoFA 2012?
Not saying that it doesn’t, but what are you going to say to POPLA when they reject your appeal?
Presumed delivered 31/10 so well within 14 days.
ECP NtKs are never fully compliant with PoFA. They all fail PoFA para 9(2)(e)(i). Whilst ECP would not agree and most POPLA assessors are too intellectually malnourished or plainly moronic to understand, you still go through the motions.
What I can assure you of, with greater than 99.9% certainly, is that if you follow the advice, you will not have to pay a penny to ECP.
For now, simply appeal to ECP. There is no legal obligation on the
known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the
unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the
unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
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 complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
When that is rejected, you will have 33 days to make a POPLA appeal, which for this operator would include the following point, amongst the others:
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.
Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper liability.
What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g. language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days” / “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i) forbids.
For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the 9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not identified. The keeper is not liable in law.
Thanks b789, I suspected that would be your reply !
Let the motions begin..... dashing off the fruitless appeal to ECP. WIll keep you in the loop.
As expected, they have rejected my appeal. We now move on to POPLA.
Would you please review my POPLA appeal below ? many thanks.
I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx and I dispute the above-referenced Parking Charge. The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that they cannot transfer liability for the charge to the keeper. I therefore dispute the charge on the following grounds :
1. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA)
2. Inadequate signage
3. No evidence of parking
4. No evidence of landholder authority
Non-Compliance with POFA
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.
Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper liability.
What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g. language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days” / “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i) forbids.
For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the 9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not identified. The keeper is not liable in law.
Inadequate Signage
I refer to Section 3 (signs and surface markings) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Version 1.1 dated 17 February 2025 – the “COP”
The commentary states “Signs and surface markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers.”
Section 3.1.2 states “The size and positioning of the sign must take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance and must be visible (i.e. not be obscured e.g. by foliage or other objects).”
Section 3.1.3 states “Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must:
a) be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to
read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle;”
Section 3.2 states “Where different terms and conditions apply to adjoining stretches of controlled land where there is no physical segregation, signs and/or surface markings must be used by the parking operator within the controlled land for which they are responsible to delineate clearly between these premises and alert drivers to the terms and conditions applying.”
Section 3.4 in the note acknowledges “[…] the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances […]”
The signage at this location fails on all the above criteria.
There is a single entrance sign. It is not the sign included in the operator’s response to appeal – that is located elsewhere. According to the COP (Table A.2) this sign contains ‘group 1 text’ . The COP states that for “Car park entered from higher-speed road or using a length of access road” the typical approach speed will be 25mph and the Group 1 text should be a minimum of 90mm. This car park is approached from just such a road and as can be seen from photograph 10, the Group 1 text is 45mm – half the required size.
The entrance to the land is shown in photograph 4 in context of the driver’s view. This is the view from 30 metres. It is obvious that a driver travelling at 20+ mph along this road, with the afternoon Winter sun directly ahead, will be looking at the jutting corner of the building, not at an obscure sign on the wall which is the wrong size, contrary to sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the COP.
This view is further made problematic by being mixed in with other signs. The Smart Charge company sign is much bigger and this company even felt the need to put a sign up on the opposite side of the road. In addition, there is much clutter of no parking signs around the area (see photographs 1-3) contrary to sections 3.2 and 3.4 of the COP. Its is ironic that the clutter of other signage has been created by the same parking operator.
There is no obligation to visit Sainsburys. Photographs 5-9 show the route this vehicle took to arrive at a parking space showing that it is perfectly possible (as happened in this case) to park where this car was and leave the site without seeing a single sign.
Considering the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of the COP and PoFA, it is beyond any doubt that the signage is not sufficient to give adequate notice of the charge and bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.
No evidence of parking
I have seen examples of these ‘Notice to Keeper’ letters shown to me by friends. It seems to be common practice to include photos of the vehicle entering and leaving the site, together with a time stamp. Whilst evidence of entering and leaving site is not evidence of parking, EuroCarParks have failed to include even this basic information in their notice.
I require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the site which conform to Section 7.3 of the COP. Without these, we only have ECP’s word that an infringement has potentially been committed.
No evidence of Landowner authority
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landowner of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landowner’s definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints nor that both the landowner and operator are in full compliance with planning permission granted against a Traffic Management Plan.
Section 14 of the COP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, to prove that they have the right to enforce the charge in court in their own name
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.
That’s good to go, for what it’s worth. As I have said in many identical ECP threads, POPLA is unlikely to be successful but if all the advice is followed and this runs the usual course of a claim eventually being issued and defended, it will eventually be struck out or discontinued.
Agree x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List