Hi All
A person known to me has received an invoice from Euro Car Parks - I can see from this forum that they rarely "do court" so happy to fight it. For "**** and giggles" I asked an AI to write the POPLA appeal. This is what it came back with after some kicking to point out the car was leased and so the original NTK went to the leasing company. Would be interested to know what the brains of the forum think of what it produced:
POPLA Appeal – Parking Charge Notice [insert number]
I am the hirer/lessee of the vehicle and I appeal this Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:
1. Failure to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (No Hirer Liability)
This vehicle is subject to a lease agreement. Therefore, the provisions relating to hire vehicles under Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 apply.
The operator has failed to meet the strict requirements to transfer liability from the driver to the hirer.
In particular, the Notice to Hirer was not accompanied by the mandatory documents required under Paragraph 13(2), namely:
A copy of the Notice to Keeper
A copy of the hire/lease agreement
A copy of any statement of liability signed by the hirer
These are statutory requirements. In the absence of these documents, the operator cannot transfer liability to the hirer.
As such, I cannot be held liable for this charge.
2. The operator has failed to demonstrate that a compliant Notice to Keeper was served
The operator has not provided evidence that the Notice to Keeper issued to the registered keeper fully complied with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
In particular, the Notice to Keeper fails to specify the “period of parking” as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a). Instead, it relies solely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps, which do not constitute the period of parking.
ANPR timestamps record vehicle movement, not parking time, and do not account for:
Time spent entering or exiting the site
Time spent searching for a parking space
Mandatory grace periods
Therefore, the Notice to Keeper does not comply with POFA and cannot be relied upon to establish keeper liability.
3. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land or that it has been granted authority by the landowner to issue parking charges and pursue them in its own name.
A mere site agreement or witness statement is insufficient. A full, unredacted contract with the landowner must be produced.
4. Inadequate signage and no evidence of a contractual agreement
The operator has not provided evidence that the signage at the site was sufficient to form a legally binding contract with the driver.
The burden of proof rests with the operator to demonstrate:
That signage was clearly visible at the entrance and throughout the site
That the terms and conditions were prominently displayed
That the parking charge was clearly communicated
In the absence of such evidence, no contract can be established.
5. ANPR system reliability and accuracy
The operator relies solely on ANPR evidence. I require the operator to demonstrate that the ANPR system is:
Accurate
Maintained correctly
Synchronized with correct time settings
Without such evidence, the reliability of the timestamps cannot be assumed.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and has failed to establish liability.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
