Author Topic: Euro Car Parks - Permit didn't cover time of park - No NTK/final notice only - Wish St Car Park, Rye  (Read 110 times)

0 Members and 36 Guests are viewing this topic.

Dear lovely helpful people,

It is currently day 24 since the letter was printed (9/04/26) and I understand I must send an appeal on day 25 or 26 from advice on these forums, so may have to go ahead if no one sees this and hope all is well.

I have recieved a final notification letter over a month after the date of issue stated on the PCN for a vehicle I am keeper of, stating the permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking. I have recieved no other letter or notification. I have read the newbie thread on moneysavingexpert and reasoned I could try altering their template (omitting that they haven't explained what it is for, as they have?)- times are stated but there are no photographs.

There was a sick dog in the car and the driver no longer has any tickets from any machines so as there isn't proof of how long was paid for or the times on the printed ticket, I am wondering if it can be contested. I have encouraged looking for any card payments incase it was not cash.

Having researched this car park I have discovered the cameras start counting from the moment of passing the threshold, not from when the car is actually parked, so the time on the ticket is unlikely to match up with the camera times- I found a forum post by someone who had been fined for 5 seconds! Also evidence people are charged who didnt even park.
This car park was in articles in 2024 for it's unfairness and seems the machine is often on the blink- the following link contains signage images for 2024. I am unaware what the grace period is meant to be for this car park.

Street view : 
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps. · maps.app.goo.gl
Has a photo of machine sign from 2026.

My research attempts seem to tell me it may not be POFA compliant if there was no notice to keeper?
This page explains what Keeper Liability means following the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act
Parking Cowboys | Educating the public about private parking tickets! · parkingcowboys.co.uk


To my mind at the least they should reduce it to the lower amount and that is all my family believes I should be asking to avoid risk (shall I add this to my appeal), but it sounds like if they are not compliant the whole thing is void?

Images of PCN:
Use imgbox to upload, host and share all your images. It
imgbox.com

Use imgbox to upload, host and share all your images. It
imgbox.com


Thus:
'Dear Euro Car Parks team,
I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle- I have recieved a final notification letter but no other contact or notice to keeper, breaching POFA.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn as the notice is not POFA compliant. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation with evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images/footage of the vehicle.
If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs.
If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.
Kind regards'

I have not appealed a fine before even when unfair, so posting to be sure, apologies for any repeats- I have been looking. Family going on about points on licence if this goes to court!


Thanks for your time, energy and have a lovely day!
« Last Edit: May 03, 2026, 03:22:10 am by deerling »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


This is a civil matter and small claims court, there is no chance of anything happening with a driving licence.

Also, if it went all the way to court it is most usually that ECP will discontinue the case before paying the court fee.

« Last Edit: May 17, 2026, 12:09:32 am by deerling »

I now have a rejection letter from ECP that includes the original NTK they supposedly sent (I suppose I shall have to presume they actually did). I do not know if it not arriving is any kind of breach that is useful (I thought NTKs had to arrive within 14 days of the event) but they say they don't have to prove it arrived and isn't their fault if it was not recieved.
The photo of the sign was in their email.


Use imgbox to upload, host and share all your images. It
imgbox.com

Use imgbox to upload, host and share all your images. It
imgbox.com

Use imgbox to upload, host and share all your images. It
imgbox.com

Use imgbox to upload, host and share all your images. It
imgbox.com

Use imgbox to upload, host and share all your images. It
imgbox.com


I am unsure if there is grounds for me going further with this or not - I cannot figure out if their letter is compliant or not, despite trying to educate myself and also reading some POPLA rejection/acceptance threads. Sometimes the assessor is satisfied it is compliant when it seemed they weren't, so the charge did transfer to the keeper. It seems risky to presume they won't go to court because they might reason they would win?
The charge was issued 2 mins before the ticket time ran out, confirmed by the data they provided, so the charge must be for the time it took to get the ticket in the first place (total time from crossing the threshold of the carpark to leaving the threshold- 2hrs 12mins) and it seems unreasonable to expect that not to take a little time. But perhaps a court would say that is too long, I have no idea.

I don't think there is enough grounds to say the signs weren't clear, though very busy, as it does say there will be a charge for overstaying, but I do not think all the people getting fined there and saying they won't go back to the area full stop are realising it means they are not allowing any time between driving in and getting the ticket- who would expect the time on their ticket to be false!
I could claim the leaving time is blurred on their photograph, perhaps.

I haven't contacted POPLA yet and have 14 days since the 8th, so until the 22nd to pay this charge as keeper, or 5th June to appeal to POPLA.

I understand from the POPLA rejection letters that mentioning previous cases in he same car park is not relevant to the assessors so I presume articles about it are much the same.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2026, 12:07:31 am by deerling »

This is a civil matter and small claims court, there is no chance of anything happening with a driving licence.

Also, if it went all the way to court it is most usually that ECP will discontinue the case before paying the court fee.

Thanks Dave, hard to be confident when it's the first time you're doing anything like this. If it seems they would win though I presume they would go to court?

Can we assume that you have been provided with a POPLA code?

Euro Car Parks POPLA Appeal


I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question and, since the driver is not known to the operator, I will be making my representations purely as keeper.


I understand that, under 'POPLA Rules', I must set out my appeal points and the parking operator must rebut them?


Non compliance with PoFA 2012.

The parking operators NtK fails to comply with PoFA and, as a result, liability cannot be passed from driver to keeper.

In particular, the NtK fails to satisfy the legal requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).

This non compliance is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA.

Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) sets out the following;


THE NOTICE MUST 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; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;


So, in order to establish compliance, we must examine the operators NtK.

An examination of the legislation surrounding 9(2)(e) reveals that compliance is achieved by the setting out of the statutory wording immediately followed by a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'nominate another driver'.

So, to make this really easy, in the first instance, we are looking for the specific statutory wording set out in 9(2)(e) itself.

The legislation specifies that THE NOTICE MUST STATE, "that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver"

An examination of the operators NtK reveals that the statutory wording is not present.

This is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA.

However, to demonstrate my appeal point further, the NtK is then required to present a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' which 'invites the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver'

Please again note the exact wording of the statute;

That the notice must 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— blah blah blah

I have capitalised  the word AND for good reason since the word AND demonstrates that compliance is only achieved if the operator is able to demonstrate that both legs of the AND logic have been satisfied.

Please note (and I apologise for sounding like a Junior School Teacher) that a 'warning to the keeper' is not 'an invitation to the keeper' - The words 'warn' and 'invite' have very different meanings and it is important that the correct wording is understood and applied when examining the NtK since other terms of the legislation require that 'a warning' be set out on the NtK - I understand that some POPLA assessors have become confused on this issue in the past and have inadvertently applied the reversed meanings - to be clear, a warning is not an invite.

So, back to the two limbed invitation to the keeper - when the NtK is examined the two limbed invitation is not present.

Nor is there an 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges' - this is also the specific requirement of 9(2)(e)(i).

So, as I am sure you can see, there are multiple compliance issues on the operators NtK.


So,

APPEAL POINT ONE - That the operators NtK does not contain the legally required mandatory wording required by 9(2)(e), namely; "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - I therefore ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the relevant NTK, to the POPLA Assessor, with an orange rectangle around the wording, "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - for total clarity, please do not include any other notations on the provided NtK - just the orange rectangle.

APPEAL POINT TWO - That, subsequent to the statutory wording required by 9(2)(e), the operators NtK does not set out the mandatory two legged invitation to the keeper to either pay the unpaid parking charges or nominate another driver - Once again, I ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the NtK which clearly sets out, in an orange rectangle, the two legged legal invitation which the legislation requires in order to be compliant.

APPEAL POINT THREE - That, in accordance with 9(2)(e) and subsequently 9(2)(e)(i), the NtK must 'invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges' - Once I again I ask the operator to prove that the NtK complies with this requirement - please demonstrate the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges' - Please do not confuse this 'invitation' with any 'warning to keeper' contained in the requirements of 9(2)(f).


If both the Parking Operator and the POPLA Assessor could use my numbered points then this would be very useful and should ensure that all appeal points are correctly addressed.

Best wishes,

xxxxx xxxxxxx

The £100 is among the small print on the signage, as apposed to many signs of other PPC`s.
It should be in bold print and obvious.
Worth adding to your defence.