Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
In particular

3. Post the notice(s) you have received – as well as providing important context, the notices may contain/omit details that can be used to help you successfully fight the charge. Upload photos of any and all notices you have received from the parking company. You should show us all pages of the notice(s), remove personal details (name/address, PCN reference number, Vehicle Registration Mark), but show us all dates and times. Details that you think are trivial could help you win, so don’t leave anything out.

If the advice provided here is followed, no one pays a penny to ECP.

No guide. You make an initial appeal, which is always rejected. You then appeal to POPLA which is also rejected. You ignore all the useless debt recovery letters. You receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal and respond with a template we provide, you then receive county court claim which you defend with the defence we provide and entually, the claim is either struck out or discontinued just before that have to pay the £27 trial fee.

It is tried and tested. You either trust our many years of experience in dealing with these unregulated private parking firms and their mods operandi or you don't, in which case you are free to make your own choice on how to deal with their speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract against the driver.

What is for sure, is that they rely on their victims being low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who can be intimidated into paying up out of ignorance and fear.

If you are prepared to fight this scam, then follow the advice:

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.

As you said it would, ECP rejected the appeal and provided a POPLA code.

I really appreciate any help with the POPLA appeal. Would you recommend a template?

There are hundreds of POPLA appeals you can search for on the forum. Study a few of the more recent ones and put something together yourself and show it to us before you submit it.

Do not pin your hopes on POPLA. It is most likely not going to be successful but their decision is not binding on you.

I can assure you that if you follow the advice you receive here you will not pay a penny to ECP. Yes, it will go all the way to a county court claim which you will defend with our template defence and we will guide you through the process.

Eventually, around 9-12+ months from now, the claim will either be struck out or discontinued. That is a greater than 99.9% certainty. The MO is that once POPLA is rejected, you will start receiving useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

The same MO then applies to the litigation process. If you follow the advice we provide along the way, it will be discontinued. Don't be low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree.

Many thanks for above. How does this appeal look?

VEHICLE REG: **** ***

Dear Assessor,

I am writing to formally appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Euro Car Parks (ECP) on the grounds of inadequate signage, failure to comply with PoFA requirements, non-compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and potential lack of contract and permission to issue PCNs. I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. No mention of period of parking on the PCN
Euro Car Parks has failed to fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 9(2)(a) and (b), which stipulates "The notice must—(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the **period of parking** to which the notice relates; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified **period of parking** and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;". The period of parking , which is the keyword on both of the strict requirements, is not mentioned on the Euro Car Parks' parking charge notice (PCN). The failure to meet the requirements of PoFA 9(2)(a) and (b) means Euro Car Parks cannot recover the charge from me as the registered keeper.

2. Poor or lack of signage
The signage at the car park is not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and here is no valid contract between the parking company and the driver. From where the vehicle is parked, none of the signs can be seen. It is plausible that the driver neither saw any signs nor knew about any terms & conditions which governed the area where the alleged parking violation occurred. Having visited the location, I noted that the sign on entry to the car park is almost impossible to read safely, as it is located on the far right side of entrance. Any drivers entering this car park from the busy road, cannot stop on the path of pedestrians as the entrance and search for the small sign on the right. This means immediately after completing the turn, the sign would be to the far right side of the driver and practically impossible to read safely. There is no other signage on the opposite side, nor any sign that can be seen from where the vehicle was parked. The closest sign I could find on the site, was at least 10 meter away and **not facing** where the vehicle was parked and its driver. This means the driver could not possibly see the sign, and a contract have not been formed. To be relied on as having formed a contract, all terms and conditions must be readable, understood and agreed to by any driver (elderly, disabled, short sighted etc) on entering the area and in any lighting and all weather conditions. As no contract was formed with the driver, Euro Car Parks cannot issue a PCN let alone hold the registered keeper responsible for it.

3. No evidence to show Euro Car Parks has landowner's permission to issue PCNs
I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner. I do not believe that Euro Car Parks has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give them any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant. In addition, Euro Car Parks' lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge, I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Euro Car Parks. I expect Euro Car Parks to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code. I, therefore, put Euro Car Parks to strict proof of the contract terms with the site landowner (not an individual lessee or managing agent as they are another third party). A site agreement/witness statement saying they 'can issue Parking Charge Notices' will not suffice; this is not the issue. The whole unredacted contract is required to show what is authorised by way of charges and whether only for breach. The contract must also show the boundaries of the site they are hired to enforce it on.

Euro Car Parks has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. As Euro Car Parks have not complied fully with the requirements of PoFA, they have also breached the BPA Code of Practice at 2.4, 19.4, 21.2, 21.12 and 21.13. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper. Therefore I am not liable to any charge.

It's only POPLA and unlikely to be successful anyway. However, you have shown a weak appeal which looks as though it is from several years ago, at least. There are plenty of more recent ones which make the correct references to the PPSCoP which replaced the BPA COP over a year ago.

As I have already explained, if unsuccessful at POPLA (likely), you will not be paying. penny to ECP if you continue to follow the advice given here.

Thanks you - I have revised the appeal, mainly replacing the BPA references to PPS. How does this look?

VEHICLE REG: **** ***

Dear Assessor,

I am writing to formally appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Euro Car Parks (ECP) on the grounds of inadequate signage, failure to comply with PoFA requirements, non-compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and potential lack of contract and permission to issue PCNs. I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. No mention of period of parking on the PCN
Euro Car Parks has failed to fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 9(2)(a) and (b), which stipulates "The notice must—(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the **period of parking** to which the notice relates; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified **period of parking** and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;". The period of parking , which is the keyword on both of the strict requirements, is not mentioned on the Euro Car Parks' parking charge notice (PCN). The failure to meet the requirements of PoFA 9(2)(a) and (b) means Euro Car Parks cannot recover the charge from me as the registered keeper.

2. Poor or lack of signage
The signage at the car park is not compliant with the Private Parking Single standards and here is no valid contract between the parking company and the driver. From where the vehicle is parked, none of the signs can be seen. It is plausible that the driver neither saw any signs nor knew about any terms & conditions which governed the area where the alleged parking violation occurred. Having visited the location, I noted that the sign on entry to the car park is almost impossible to read safely, as it is located on the far right side of entrance. Any drivers entering this car park from the busy road, cannot stop on the path of pedestrians as the entrance and search for the small sign on the right. This means immediately after completing the turn, the sign would be to the far right side of the driver and practically impossible to read safely. There is no other signage on the opposite side, nor any sign that can be seen from where the vehicle was parked. The closest sign I could find on the site, was at least 10 meter away and **not facing** where the vehicle was parked and its driver. This means the driver could not possibly see the sign, and a contract have not been formed. To be relied on as having formed a contract, all terms and conditions must be readable, understood and agreed to by any driver (elderly, disabled, short sighted etc) on entering the area and in any lighting and all weather conditions. As no contract was formed with the driver, Euro Car Parks cannot issue a PCN let alone hold the registered keeper responsible for it.

3. No evidence to show Euro Car Parks has landowner's permission to issue PCNs
I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner. I do not believe that Euro Car Parks has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give them any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be PPSCoP compliant. In addition, Euro Car Parks' lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge, I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Euro Car Parks. I expect Euro Car Parks to prove that they are not in breach of section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land. I, therefore, put Euro Car Parks to strict proof of the contract terms with the site landowner (not an individual lessee or managing agent as they are another third party). A site agreement/witness statement saying they 'can issue Parking Charge Notices' will not suffice; The whole unredacted contract is required. The contract must also show the boundaries of the site they are hired to enforce it on.

Euro Car Parks has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. As Euro Car Parks have not complied fully with the requirements of PoFA, they have also breached the PPSCoP section 14.1(a)–(j). The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper. Therefore I am not liable to any charge.

If you think CHatGPT can do a better job for you, then go ahead. I've already told you that a POPLA appeal is unlikely to succeed. Not that that matters though. An unsuccessful POPLA appeal decision is not binding on you. Where this will be won is  after they use DCB Legal to issue a county court claim and when defended using our template defence, will eventually be struck out or discontinued. No doubt about that.

It's your time and effort if you are trying to pin your hopes on POPLA.

I see.

No I don't have any hopes on POPLA. I have appealed to them in the past, put lots of effort into it and thought I had a good case. They rejected it with what it seemed like a canned reply.

To avoid wasting any more time, should I go ahead with this, wait for the eventual county court claim and then report back?