Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear all,

I'd appreciate advice on a Notice to Keeper received from Euro Car Parks. I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.


Summary of events:


On 18/04/2026, the driver entered the Horse & Barge car park (Duke Street, Thorn Lane, Reading, RG1 2AG) at 13:37 per the ANPR entry time on the PCN.
The driver remained in the vehicle for a period after arrival. When the driver attempted to pay via the Pay by Phone app, internet connectivity issues delayed the transaction although no proof is present. The driver eventually started a paid Pay by Phone session at 14:17 for £5.70 (Receipt available), with the session set to expire at 18:00.
The vehicle exited the car park at 18:10:00 per the ANPR exit time — 10 minutes after the paid session expired.

PCN details:

Date of Event: 18/04/2026
Date Issued: 23/04/2026 (5 days after event)
Contravention stated on PCN: "The vehicle was parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction"
Entry: 13:37 / Exit: 18:10:00 / Time in car park: 4h 33m
Charge: £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, by 07/05/2026)
Issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Operator is a BPA Approved Operator
No comms held with Euro Car Parks till date.

Points I'd like advice on:

The stated contravention is "parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction", however a valid Pay by Phone transaction was made (£5.70, session 14:17–18:00). A receipt from the Pay by Phone app is available. Does the misstatement of the contravention itself give grounds to challenge? I understand the parking ticket started later than entry time.

The period between ANPR entry (13:37) and start of paid session (14:17) is approximately 39 minutes. Is this defensible in the appeal considering the failed attempts earlier by the driver, although no proof?
Any POFA Schedule 4 compliance issues to flag on the wording of the NTK?

The paid session expired at 18:00 and the vehicle exited at 18:10:00 — exactly 10 minutes after expiry. Under the BPA Code of Practice, a minimum grace period is required after the paid period ends before a PCN can be issued. Is the overstay defensible on this basis?



No appeal has been submitted yet. PCN images, payment receipt and signage photos links are given below.

What is the best course of action at this stage?

Thanks in advance for any advice.



PCN Front:
PCN Back:
Parking payment receipt:

Notice images at the parking:

There must be other signage within the car park, warning of the charge if the terms are not met (such as £100).

Please, any thoughts on this will be appreciated. Thanks!

By b789
ECP reply by b789 November 05 2025
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

Apologies, I'm being extra careful.

I cannot fully paste the text, last line is cutting off due to text limit on ECP appeal page, is it ok to miss the last sentence? I will completely drop it if OK?