Free Traffic Legal Advice

We have received a PCN from Euro Car Parks following a visit to McDonalds drive through next to the Sainsburys cars park.  After collecting the order the car exited the McDonalds area and moved into the Sainsburys area to take a phone call.

We've visited McDonalds and Sainsburys many times and wasn't aware of any parking restrictions.  On the day of the contravention it was late at night and dark.  We visited after receiving the letter at a similar time and saved the dashcam footage to show that the car park is dark and there is no lit signage.

The images in the letter are very dark and I haven't redacted the entry image that is what it looks like!

We don't believe that the signage is sufficient to comply with the BPA code of conduct but would like some guidance about appeal to Euro Car Parks in the first instance, how much do we say? 




 

b789 thank you so much for your reply.  My expectation was that no matter what I stated ECP would refuse the appeal.

I notice that page two of the NTK didn't appear in my original post so I've posted it here, does that make any difference to it being POFA compliant?

Just so I can understand would you mind explaining what makes it non compliant? 

I will so follow your advice, I went through this process nearly ten years ago for another PCN at Asda in Newquay it took 18 months but with the advice of a forum like this we won a POPLA appeal 

Thanks for taking the time for explaining.

ECP only allow appeals via post or via their website where the online form doesn't give enough characters to post the response provided in full!

The full response is 892 character but the online form is only allowing 800 characters. 

So stupid question time    should I appeal via post and hope Royal Mail manage to deliver by the deadline or reduce the response by 92 characters and appeal online?

PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) requires the Notice to Keeper to explicitly invite the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the driver’s details.

This is b789s interpretation of POFA and would seem to invalidate pretty much every PCN issued regardless of which company issued it. It's an extremely technical point which has yet to be tested in court. Also seems odd that the entire parking industry have invalidated their ntks over such a simple ommission of the word invite.

It might be a valid interpretation of the POFA legislation but it will need a court to decide that. Please don't assume this is a slam dunk defence, it ie extremely likely to be rejected by the parking company appeals process and the independent appeals process. Are you willing to go all the way through the court process on an untested defence?

The lack of lighting in the carpark won't be a defence, your car does have two extremely bright lights on it.

Ok that's fair, there can be conditions where lack of lighting could be a contributing factor and some of the PPC signage is terrible, however given reasonable signage positioning it should be visible with dipped headlights. Signs on the highway are usually more than 2m off the ground and they aren't all lit, for example speed limit repeater signs in a 40 zone. In this case the sign at the entrance to the car park should be prominent and visible which should be enough to encourage the driver to look for T & C signs. If the signage is not visible at night it's probably more to do with inadequate quantity and sign design rather than the fact they aren't lit.

We see enough people who never read the signs even on the brightest of days.

Ok, Google street view suggests there were two fairly obvious signs at the entrance you would have driven past to enter the car park and there are others signs within the car park. The images are 2 years old so could be out of date. The parking company will have images of their signage and where it is placed so will undoubtedly counter your pictures unless you can show the signage is no longer where it was originally placed.

Appreciate you are a long way from court, just pointing out your 2 defence points, lack of signage and b789s wording issue are unlikely to succeed at either the PPC  appeals stage or at POPLA unless you have additional evidence you haven't shared. Of course it's up to you how you wish to proceed.

Thanks, I looked at that page and it clearly states that they do not accept appeals via that web form.

Send it anyway. Any initial appeal is going to be rejected whatever is in it. If you're only after the POPLA code, the simply send the following via their webform:

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.

The only other option is to send the appeal in a formal complaint to ECP using the same form, as they are obliged to treat any complaint as an appeal according to PPSCoP section 11.2 which states:

Where a parking operator receives a complaint that it considers to be or include an appeal against the validity of a parking charge, the parking operator must also treat it as an appeal for the purposes of applying the timescales in Clause 8.4, and should inform the complainant as such unless and until it is clear that the complaint is not relevant to an appeal or the complainant informs the parking operator that they do not wish it to be so handled.

NOTE: It might not be immediately apparent that a complaint served as such relates to one or more specific parking charges, possibly by way of a clarification that reveals that an appeal would be worthwhile, hence parking operators are advised to record and handle complaints as appeals until they are found conclusively not to be so or patently refer to matters not relevant to the validity of a parking charge.

Don't try to overthink this. If POPLA doesn't work, then you still don't pay and wait for the inevitable claim form and defend it with our assistance. No one who is here receiving our advice and following it pays a penny to ECP.

This is my first draft of the appeal, any suggestions?

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued by Euro Car Parks for the alleged parking contravention on 30/01/2025 at Sainsbury’s, Newton Abbot. My appeal is based on multiple grounds, including the operator's failure to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and other procedural and evidential shortcomings.

1. Failure to Comply with POFA Schedule 4
a. Non-Compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i): Required Invitation
Under POFA Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), the Notice to Keeper (NTK) must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the parking charge or provide the driver’s details. However, the wording on the back of the NTK does not fulfil this requirement. Instead of a clear invitation, the NTK states:

"You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days… we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you…”
This language is unclear and fails to meet the strict legal standard. The NTK does not properly invite the keeper to take the specified actions but instead shifts the burden onto them with vague and non-compliant wording.

b. Non-Compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(f): Keeper Liability Timeframe
POFA Paragraph 9(2)(f) specifies that the parking charge becomes payable by the keeper only if it remains unpaid for 28 days after the NTK is deemed delivered. The NTK incorrectly states that payment is required “28 days from the issue date.” This misrepresentation creates a procedural defect and misleads the keeper about their liability.

2. Breach of BPA Code of Practice

a. Early Debt Recovery Threats
The NTK threatens debt recovery action before the full appeal period has expired, contrary to Section 8.1.2(e) of the BPA Code of Practice. This unfair practice disregards the required timelines and further undermines the validity of the Parking Charge Notice.

b. Signage: Inadequate and Unclear
The signage at the site fails to meet the standards set out in BPA Code of Practice Section 19. Specifically:

Poor Night-Time Visibility: The signs are not illuminated or reflective, making them impossible to read after dark. Drivers cannot reasonably be expected to comply with terms they cannot see.

Ambiguity Regarding “Store Opening Hours”: The phrase “during store opening hours” is not defined. With both a Sainsbury’s and McDonald’s on-site, which have differing hours, it is unclear which store the signage refers to.

Failure to Display Key Terms Clearly: The terms and conditions outlined on the signage are not legible from a driver's position in the car. The font size is too small, and important information, such as restrictions or conditions of parking, is not prominently displayed. This makes it difficult for drivers to understand or comply with the stated terms, especially when attempting to read the signage while entering or parking their vehicle.

c. Signage: Poor Placement and Lack of Visibility from All Directions
The signage at the entrance to the car park is not visible to drivers approaching from all directions. Specifically:

Inadequate Positioning: When entering the car park from Torquay Road, into Keyberry Road and then into the car park, the sign is positioned behind the driver’s left shoulder, making it impossible for the driver to view it clearly without stopping and turning their head significantly. This means the signage cannot be reasonably seen through the front windscreen of a vehicle upon entry.

Non-Compliance with BPA Code of Practice: Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice mandates that signage must be placed so that it is clearly visible to drivers when entering the site. The current placement of the sign fails to meet this standard, as it does not ensure clear and unambiguous communication to all motorists.

Due to this placement issue, drivers entering the car park cannot be expected to see, read, or agree to the terms of parking. This lack of visibility undermines the formation of a valid contract between the driver and the operator.

3. Lack of Landowner Authority

In accordance with Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, Euro Car Parks is required to have written authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and pursue enforcement. I request that POPLA demand the operator provide:
A full, unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner.
Proof that the contract was valid on the date of the alleged contravention.

If this evidence is not supplied, it must be concluded that Euro Car Parks does not have the authority to issue or enforce this Parking Charge Notice.

Summary of Failures
Non-compliance with POFA Paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(f).
Threatening early debt recovery in breach of BPA Code of Practice.
Inadequate and ambiguous signage, failing to form a valid contract.
Failure to provide proof of landowner authority.

Given these significant issues, the Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable, and I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge in full.

This appeal is submitted with reference to the applicable legal and procedural requirements, and I trust POPLA will give due regard to these points.

Yours faithfully,