Free Traffic Legal Advice

It is a common failure with many P&D machines that issue a physical ticket. However, the unregulated parking operator will not give a damn and will gleefully issue a PCN as it is easy money for them, especially f their victim is low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and likely to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

I can tell that if you follow the advice we give here, you will not be paying a penny to ECP. They are easily defeated but it is a protracted process that will go all the way to a county court claim, issued through DCB Legal. I can tell you with greater than 99.9% certainty that any claim issued though DCB Legal that is defended, and we provide the defence, will either be struck out or discontinued.

To begin with, appeal to ECP with the following:

I am the Keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your parking charge. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm.

A valid pay-to-park session was purchased by the driver. Your machine recorded only the last three characters of the VRM, showing “OTA” on the receipt, whereas the full VRM is “J60OTA”. This is not a “gross keying error” by the driver but a failure of your equipment to record the full VRM. You could have very easily verify the payment by cross-checking your payment logs for an unreconciled transaction against “OTA” at the material time.

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. In particular, it fails paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) because it does not include the required invitation for the keeper to pay 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.

If/when that is rejected, come back for a POPLA appeal.

So attach it as a PDF. I don't understand the problem? Just get it submitted!

Hi guys

It won't surprise you to heat that my appeal was rejected. I received the rejection as an email with a PDF attachment. The email address was a noreply address.

Below is the text from the PDF:

What do you recommend as my next move please? I really appreciate your help.


===================

Date: 21/11/2025
Our Ref: [REMOVED MY MOD]
Unique POPLA Verification Code: [REMOVED MY MOD]
Dear ************ (ON BEHALF OF THE DRIVER),
Thank you for your letter of appeal. The details of the Parking Charge Notice are as follows:

Parking Charge Notice Number: [REMOVED MY MOD] Date of Issue: 13/10/2025
Vehicle Registration Mark: FJ60OTA Time of Issue: 17:53:23
The Site: JDW - The Dominie Cross - Retford

Breach of Terms and Conditions:
No valid pay and display/permit was
purchased

Having carefully considered the supporting evidence provided by you, Euro Car Parks (ECP) have
decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:

• The Site is operated by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system and patrolled
by ECP employees.
• When purchasing a pay and display ticket or mobile payment session, payment is required for
the full duration of your stay and the full and correct vehicle registration mark. Signage at the
site clearly details the terms and conditions that you must adhere to.
• Your appeal states that you purchased a pay and display ticket or mobile payment session,
however, after checking the providers mobile payment and/or pay and display machine audit
reports for your stay, there are no transactions for the vehicle registration mark which would
suggest there has been a “major keying error” when purchasing a pay and display
ticket/mobile payment session.
• Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the
registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days
beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’), Euro Car Parks have the right
subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much
of that amount which remains unpaid.

ECP can confirm the parking charge notice has been issued correctly and the £20.00 administration
fee is now due as per the British Parking Association Code of Practice. Failure to pay the £20.00
administration fee within 14 days from the date of this letter the parking charge notice amount will
revert back to the original amount due when the appeal was logged.

Oct 13, 2025 16:46:51 Oct 13, 2025 17:47:02 327102 JDW - The Dominie Cross - Retford JDC02B Up To 2 Hours OTA £2.00

C1 MB

AR/DB/v.001

Once the payment of the £20.00 administration fee has been received within 14 days from the date of
this letter, the parking charge notice will be closed and considered settled.

Payment of the £20.00 is now due. Please use one of the following options below to make
payment:
1. Online: By visiting https://www.eurocarparks.com/pay-a-parking-charge/
2. Phone: Use the automated telephone service 0203 553 4559.
3. Post: Make your cheque payable to Euro Car Parks Limited (include a £2.50 handling charge
for cheque processing) and post to Euro Car Parks Ltd, 30 Dorset Square, London, NW1
6QJ, quoting the PCN number on the reverse of the cheque.
The above amount is now due and the parking charge notice will be held for 14 days from the date of
this letter to allow time to make payment.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
You can make an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land
Appeals) using the unique POPLA Reference code provided above. Please note, should you decide
to appeal to POPLA, or if you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected, the option
to pay the £20.00 administration fee/discounted amount will no longer be available and the Full
Amount of the PCN will be due.
Please note - if the parking charge notice was issued in Scotland and or Northern Ireland, only “The
Driver” can appeal to POPLA.

If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit the website, www.popla.co.uk where further
details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. If the
driver is unable to access the website, please use the contact us page at
https://www.popla.co.uk/contact. Please ensure that the POPLA Reference Number as noted above is
quoted on all correspondence to POPLA. You have 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an
appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA, the parking charge notice will be placed on hold.

Appeals may not be accepted if payment is made against the Parking Charge Notice, including any
appeals logged via POPLA.

If you choose to ignore this letter, we will seek to recover the outstanding amount owed to us through
the debt recovery process and procedure, this may lead to court action against you.

By law, we are also required to inform you that the Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-
services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be able to assist with your appeal. Please note, we have not chosen to participate in their dispute resolution service and as such,
should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as detailed above.
Yours sincerely

PCN Coordinator
Parking Charge Notice Department

Thank you. I have found an example of an ECN POPLA appeal and adapted it using the hooks that you had provided. I include it below. Will it suffice?

Thanks again for your help and guidance.

----------

POPLA Appeal
Verification Code: xxxx
Parking Charge Ref: xxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxx
Operator: Euro Car Parks
Appellant: The Keeper

I am the Keeper of the vehicle and I submit this appeal on the following grounds:

1. Valid Pay to Park Purchased - Equipment failed to record to full VRM
2. No Driver Liability – No Admission of Driving; Operator Attempting to Hold an Unidentified Party Liable
3. The signage fails to comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii).
4. The operator is put to strict proof that its signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024).
5. The operator is put to strict proof that it holds a valid and contemporaneous contract with the landowner authorising the issuing of PCNs in its own name.

No evidence has been provided as to the identity of the driver, and no liability can transfer to the Hirer in the absence of PoFA compliance.

1. A valid pay-to-park session was purchased by the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.. The machine in the car park managed by Euro Car Parks recorded only the last three characters of the VRM, showing “OTA” on the receipt, whereas the full VRM is “J60OTA”. This is not a “gross keying error” by the driver but a failure of the equipment to record the full VRM. Euro Car Parks could have very easily verified the payment by cross-checking their payment logs for an unreconciled transaction against “OTA” at the material time.


2. No Driver Liability – No Admission of Driving; Operator Attempting to Hold the Wrong Party Liable

The Keeper has made no admission as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. No such admission is required, and no lawful presumption can be made. The operator is not entitled to infer, assume, or speculate that the Keeper was the driver.

This appeal is made strictly in the capacity of Keeper, and Euro Car Parks is fully aware that their ability to pursue the Keeper relies on strict compliance with Schedule 4, Paragraph 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As established in Section 1 of this appeal, ECP has not complied with the mandatory conditions of Paragraph 14. Therefore, they have no lawful basis to transfer liability to the Keeper.

Where liability cannot transfer, the only party potentially liable is the driver. However, where the driver has not been identified — and no lawful inference can be drawn — the operator is left without a liable party.

The law is unequivocal. PoFA does not permit a parking operator to simply pursue the most convenient or likely person. Liability must lie either with:

•The driver (if known or admitted); or
• The keeper but only if full and correct PoFA compliance has been achieved.

In this case, the Keeper is not shown to be the driver, and the operator has failed to meet the statutory gateway for pursuing the Keeper. Therefore, no party is lawfully liable, and the charge must be cancelled.

Appeal point #3 Conclusion

The Keeper has made no admission as to being the driver, and the operator has not complied with the strict statutory requirements needed to hold the Keeper liable under PoFA. As such, Euro Car Parks is attempting to hold an unidentified party liable in direct contravention of the statute. The charge is therefore unenforceable, and the appeal must be allowed.







3. The Signage Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) – The Parking Charge Was Not Given Adequate Notice

Euro Car Parks (ECP) has failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). These provisions state that, to be enforceable, a parking charge must be adequately notified to the driver at the time the vehicle was parked.

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(2):

“The reference in the definition of ‘parking charge’ to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).”

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii):

“Adequate notice” means the display of one or more notices which:

“(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.”

It is not enough for a parking operator to simply claim that signs were present. The sum being demanded must be clearly specified and prominent on those signs, and the signage must be adequate to bring that charge to the attention of drivers.

Why the Signage at Dominie Cross, Retford Fails to Meet These Requirements

The signage at this location falls far short of what is required to satisfy Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii). Specifically:

• The parking charge is buried in small print within a densely worded sign and is not legible or visible from a moving vehicle or from a reasonable distance.
• The signage does not specify the charge in a manner that is prominent or apparent to drivers at the point of decision (i.e. when entering or parking).
• The charge is not brought to the attention of the driver in a manner that could fairly be described as “adequate” under the statutory definition.
• There is no large, clear warning that a failure to purchase a pay-by-phone session will incur a specified charge.
• The charge is not immediately obvious, nor is it specified as a penalty for unauthorised parking in a conspicuous manner.

Accordingly, ECP is attempting to enforce a parking charge that does not meet the legal definition of a ‘parking charge’ under PoFA Schedule 4. The sum was not adequately notified, and therefore cannot be recovered from the driver (if known).

Relevant Standards and Best Practice

These defects also breach:

• The British Parking Association Code of Practice v9 (January 2024), Section 19.3 and Appendix B, which require that the parking charge must be prominently displayed and clearly legible, with core contractual terms (including the charge) being immediately apparent.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015, which mandates that any term likely to disadvantage the consumer (such as a £100 penalty) must be transparent and prominent.

This was reaffirmed in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the £85 charge was prominently displayed and therefore enforceable. The contrast with this case is stark: ECP’s charge is not prominent and would not withstand equivalent judicial scrutiny.

Appeal point #3 Conclusion

The signage at Dominie Cross, Retford fails to satisfy PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) because the charge was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver. As such, no enforceable parking charge exists, and the appeal must be allowed on this basis alone.

4. The Operator is Put to Strict Proof that its Signage Complies with the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024)

Euro Car Parks is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and is therefore required to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice Version 9 (January 2024). The operator is put to strict proof that the signage at Whale Bone Lane South – Dagenham fully complies with the relevant provisions of this Code.

In particular:

• Section 19.3 requires that signs must be clear and intelligible to drivers, and visible from a distance.
• Section 19.5 requires that the parking charge itself must be prominently displayed and not hidden within terms and conditions.
• Appendix B of the Code sets out minimum standards for font size, contrast, lighting, and the positioning of signage, such that drivers are given a fair opportunity to see, read, and understand the terms before parking.

The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with these requirements as they stood at the time of the alleged contravention, including:

• The exact wording and appearance of the signage at the site;
• A site plan showing the location and orientation of each sign;
• Evidence that all signs were clearly legible, properly positioned, and visible from all entry points;
• Whether the signs were illuminated or otherwise visible during hours of darkness.

Failure to provide such evidence should be taken by POPLA as confirmation that the signage was not compliant, and therefore no contractual charge is enforceable.

5. Strict Proof of Landowner Authority – No Locus Standi Without Full and Evidenced Rights

Euro Car Parks (ECP) is put to strict proof that it holds a valid, contemporaneous, and fully executed contract with the landowner (or a duly authorised agent) granting it the authority to manage parking, issue PCNs, and enforce those charges in its own name at Dominie Cross, Retford.

It is not sufficient for the operator to rely on:

• a generic witness statement;
• a short letter merely asserting that a contract exists;
• or any heavily redacted or undated document lacking legal specificity.

To establish locus standi, the operator must supply the full, unredacted contract, which must include all of the following:

• The full commencement and expiry dates of the contract, confirming the precise period for which authority was granted;
• Confirmation that the agreement was in force on the date of the alleged contravention;
• The full terms and conditions originally agreed between the operator and the landowner or agent, including the exact terms to be imposed on drivers;
• A clear definition of the land covered by the agreement, including plans or maps where applicable;
• Explicit confirmation within the contract that ECP has the authority to:

• manage the site;
• issue Parking Charge Notices;
• and pursue payment and legal action in its own name;

Details of any material amendments to those terms since the contract’s inception, including:

• What those changes were;
• When they were agreed;
• And confirmation that the contract was formally varied and remains binding in its amended form.

This level of documentary scrutiny is essential to confirm that any contractual terms relied on in the signage (and any related PCN) were valid and properly authorised at the relevant time. POPLA is therefore respectfully reminded that it must not accept generic, redacted, or vague evidence in support of such a fundamental claim of legal standing.

Applicable Code of Practice

While the signage at the site is governed by the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024), all other operator conduct — including contractual authority — is now governed by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires that operators:

“...must on request provide evidence of the written authorisation from the landholder (or their appointed agent) to manage the relevant site... including the scope, terms, and effective dates of such authority.”

Legal and Evidential Position

The principle that a private parking operator must hold either a proprietary interest in the land or a clear, legally binding agreement conferring enforcement authority has been repeatedly confirmed by the courts. Notably, in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, it was made clear that a mere licence to access the land is insufficient for contract formation and enforcement.

If Euro Car Parks cannot supply all of the above in full and unredacted form, then it has no legal standing to issue or pursue any PCN at this location, and the appeal must be allowed in full.

Conclusion

In summary, Euro Car Parks has failed to meet the statutory requirements necessary to hold the Hirer liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Hirer is non-compliant; the signage does not give adequate notice of the charge; no admission has been made as to the identity of the driver; and the operator has not provided evidence of either signage compliance with the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024) or valid landowner authority as required by the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

On all grounds presented, the charge is unenforceable, and POPLA is invited to allow this appeal in full and direct the operator to cancel the Parking Charge.

Thank you. The appeal has been submitted. My understanding of next steps is:


the appeal will be rejected
I will receive demands in the post from ECP, debt collectors and a legal team
I ignore all of these until I receive a letter of claim from DCB legal
I then come back here and ask for help on a defense

is that about right?

Thanks for all your help

Bob