Free Traffic Legal Advice

Of course you challenge it. If you follow the advice here, you will not be paying a penny to ECP.

Any initial appeal is going to be rejected. However, you have a chance at POPLA and even if that is unsuccessful, you do not pay although it just means that the process is going to drag on for 9 to 12+ months.

If POPLA does not succeed, then you will ignore the useless debt recovery letters that will follow. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Eventually, a court claim will be made through DCB Legal and as long as it is defended with our advice, it will eventually be struck out or discontinued. This is not guesswork. It is a known modus operandi for this unregulated private parking firm.

As the initial appeal will always be rejected, just appeal as follows. 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.

Come back when you receive the appeal rejection and your POPLA code.

That's OK. Just don't select any option that states the appellant is the driver. You are only appealing as the Keeper or "other"!

Just upload as a pdf on the next page

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.

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'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!

I 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.

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.)