Free Traffic Legal Advice

I would appreciate some advice regarding a Euro Parking Services parking charge that has now reached the "Final Demand Before Court Action" stage.
Private parking charge issued in April 2026.

Vehicle is leased through a fleet company.
The original notice was sent to the leasing company, which transferred liability to me as hirer.
The first correspondence I personally received was a reminder notice rather than a fresh PCN addressed to the hirer.
The alleged contravention was "Parking for patrons whilst on the premises only".
The vehicle was parked for only 8 minutes and 14 seconds.
Euro Parking claims that the driver "walked off site".
Appeal history, due to the leasing company transferring liability, it was outside the "discounted" period.

I appealed without identifying the driver.
Euro Parking rejected the appeal and stated that the driver had been observed leaving the site.
They refused to provide details of the landowner authority, saying that it was not public information.

The rejection letter also states that motorists must remain on the premises while parked and leave immediately after completing their purchase.

Site layout:
The parking spaces are directly adjacent to a bakery and outdoor seating area.
There are no obvious physical boundaries, fences or markings showing where the premises begin or end.

The signage does not appear to define the site boundaries.
It is unclear whether the bakery and parking area are under the same ownership.

The PCN only shows CCTV images of the vehicle entering and leaving.
The operator alleges that CCTV/video shows the driver leaving the premises.
The driver believed they were using parking associated with the nearby bakery.

The parking spaces are directly adjacent to a bakery and outdoor seating area, with no obvious physical boundary, fencing or markings separating the different businesses.

The sign prominently advertises "Pay to park with your phone" and "£1 per hour" weekend parking, which gives the impression that the car park is open to the public.

The weekday restriction ("Monday to Friday parking is restricted to authorized staff only") appears in much smaller text and is far less prominent.

The sign does not clearly explain which businesses are covered by the parking restrictions or whether customers of the adjacent bakery are prohibited from parking there.

The sign refers to remaining "on the premises", but does not define where the premises begin or end.
There is no obvious indication that walking into the neighboring bakery would be considered "leaving the premises".

At the time, the driver genuinely believed that the parking spaces were connected to the nearby bakery because of the layout and the wording of the sign.

Could a reasonable motorist be expected to understand from this sign that visiting the bakery would amount to leaving the premises, given the layout and prominence of the weekend public parking information?

I have now received a "Final Demand Before Court Action" demanding £160.

I have not admitted to being the driver.

For a hire vehicle, were the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA complied with?

Should a fresh notice have been served on the hirer?

Must the operator prove exactly where the driver went and where the site boundary is?

Is the signage sufficient if the boundaries are unclear?

What should my response to the pre-action letter contain?

I have not received any notice in my name.

I only received a Reminder Notice in my name, and than now Final Demand before court action.

When the leasing company contacted me, I did make an appeal, but it was declined. I did this based on the leasing company forwarding me the documents sent to them. They did expect that a PCN would be reissued to me after transfer of liability, but never got any reissued.

This was the response to my appeal. I stopped communication after this. I am considering if I should reply to this letter or not.

Here is a copy of appeal response:
"Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
After reviewing the details of your appeal and the evidence held on file, we must advise that your appeal
has been unsuccessful.

As evidence by the PCN you were observed walking off site while your vehicle parked there.
It is the motorist’s responsibility to remain within the premises while their vehicle is parked. Once they
have completed their visit or purchase, they must leave the site immediately. Vehicles may not be left on
the premises while the driver/passenger goes elsewhere.

Note, there is a consideration period but if the driver has left the vehicle unattended and has gone
elsewhere then they are no longer considering the terms and conditions of parking enforcement on the
premises.

The Landowner authority is not public information and this does not have to be disclosed. The IAS has
access to this should the appeal go to this stage.

Details of how to submit an appeal can be found at:
www.theias.org

As the discounted settlement period has lapsed, you are now required to pay £100.
We are satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly and that sufficient attention was
brought to the driver with regards to the terms and conditions enforced. In light of the aforementioned,
your appeal is declined.

If you wish to appeal this decision further, you may refer your case to the Independent Appeals Service
(IAS), which is operated by the International Parking Community (IPC)."

That's not an actual letter of claim - that will come from Gladstones, and give 30 days to pay.

What exactly did you say in your appeal? Without a compliant notice to hirer (which they never send) there is no route to hirer liability - but, and it's a big but, if you let the cat out of the bag about the driver's ID (even accidentally by saying I parked or similar) then you have lost this.   

That's a solid appeal - I would just re-send it in response to the letter, starting out with that you deny liability, and expanding that since you never received the NTH with the associated docs as required they have failed to establish hirer liability.

Does that mean hirer liability has not been established under Schedule 4?

Basically, yes.

Could you please post up the POPLA outcome?

There was no POPLA appeal. Euro Parking offered an appeal through the IAS, which I chose not to pursue because of concerns regarding its independence and success rates. Based on research I made online.

The only appeal submitted was directly to Euro Parking, which was rejected.

IMO, this is purely procedural. Don't start explaining substantive events, you'll just encourage them.

You have not received a Notice to Hirer pursuant to para. 14 of POFA, therefore prima facie you may not be held liable in lieu of the registered keeper.

In the event that such a notice was issued, you invite them to provide a copy and the prescribed accompanying documents. In addition, as they are prevented from issuing such a notice unless their claim against the registered keeper has been cancelled, you also require a copy of their letter to **** confirming cancellation of their Notice to Keeper in order to test that the creditor is not engaged in attempting double recovery.