From here, I want to explain the process clearly so you understand exactly where this goes and why you do not need to worry.
The next step is POPLA. This is simply the next procedural stage available once Euro Car Parks have rejected the appeal. Submitting a POPLA appeal does not create any obligation to pay and it does not move the case any closer to enforcement. It is just a box that gets ticked.
Once the POPLA appeal is submitted, Euro Car Parks are automatically notified through POPLA. You do not need to contact Euro Car Parks separately and you do not need to do anything else while POPLA considers the case.
If POPLA allow the appeal, the charge is cancelled and that is the end of the matter.
If POPLA reject the appeal, nothing changes in any meaningful way. A POPLA rejection is not a court decision, it is not binding on you, and it does not mean you owe any money. It simply means Euro Car Parks will continue along their standard process.
After a POPLA rejection, you will receive some useless debt recovery letters which you can safely ignore. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-honing fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear. At this stage, there is still no requirement to pay anything and no adverse consequences for not doing so.
The only point at which this becomes something you must actively deal with is when a county court claim is issued. In cases like this, that would be issued by DCB Legal.
Eventually an N1SDT Claim Form arrives. It must not be ignored. At that point, you acknowledge service and then file a defence using the template defence we provide. That is the key step.
Once that defence is submitted, I can guarantee with greater than 99.9% certainty that the claim will either be struck out or discontinued and that will be the end of the matter. There are hundreds of ECP cases on the forum and you can search for any of them to see how they progress and end if the advice given here is followed.
The process can take time but there is very little for you to do other than show us the Letter of Claim (LoC) or the Claim Form with the Particulars of Claim (PoC) on it.
Before all that, there is the POPLA appeal which should be as follows, for what it's worth:
You are right. My wording was wrong and I apologise.
A consideration period is not “extra free parking time” and it must not be presented as something that gets added to anything. It is only the time needed to locate, read and understand the terms and decide whether to accept them by remaining parked. If the driver does not accept and leaves, no parking contract is formed and no charge can arise from that signage-based contract. If the driver does accept and remains parked, the consideration period is not some “free allowance” bolted on top of the permitted stay.
The grace period is different. It applies at the end, after the permitted parking time ends, to allow a driver time to leave.
Below is the corrected POPLA appeal wording with the consideration period framed properly and without any suggestion of combining it with the grace period.
POPLA APPEAL (REGISTERED KEEPER)
POPLA verification code: [insert]
Operator: Euro Car Parks (ECP)
PCN number: [insert]
Vehicle registration: [insert]
Site: MFG – Esso Beam, New Road, Rainham RM13 8DP
Date of event: 22/09/2025
ANPR times alleged: entry 12:46:30, exit 13:20:56
Operator rejection letter date: 13/12/2025
I am the Registered Keeper and I am appealing as Keeper only. The Operator has not established Keeper liability, and it has not proved any breach on the balance of probabilities. I require POPLA to allow this appeal and direct the Operator to cancel the PCN.
1. The Operator has not established Keeper liability (strict proof required)
The Operator must demonstrate full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 in order to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper. I do not admit to being the driver.
The Operator is put to strict proof that a fully PoFA-compliant Notice to Keeper was served, including all mandatory wording and information required by Schedule 4. The Operator must produce to POPLA a copy of the original Notice to Keeper and evidence of the date of posting/service. If PoFA compliance is not proven, the Keeper cannot be liable and this appeal must be allowed.
2. No evidence of the required period of parking (ANPR entry/exit is not parking)
The Operator relies on ANPR timestamps of entry and exit. This does not evidence the period of parking. ANPR records only when a vehicle passed a camera at the site boundary, not when it was parked in a bay, nor time spent driving within the site, circulating, queuing, manoeuvring, waiting to access pumps/facilities, or exiting.
The Operator alleges a “maximum stay 15 minutes” term but has not proved any actual parked duration. It has therefore failed to prove a breach of any maximum stay term.
POPLA is invited to require the Operator to produce evidence of the true period of parking (not merely entry/exit images) and to explain how it distinguished parking time from driving/queuing/exiting time. In the absence of such evidence, the charge cannot be upheld.
3. Consideration period and contract formation not proven
The Operator must prove that the driver was given a fair opportunity to locate and read the terms before any parking contract could be formed by the driver choosing to remain parked. This is not “extra parking time”. It is about whether the terms were properly brought to the driver’s attention, and whether any contract was capable of being formed at all.
The driver did not see any clear signage indicating a stay limit. The Operator’s rejection letter contains assertions about signage but assertions are not evidence. The Operator has not proved that the key terms were prominent and readable at the entrance and throughout the site from a driver’s perspective before any decision to remain parked was made.
If the Operator cannot prove that the driver had a fair opportunity to see and read the terms before remaining parked, then it cannot prove acceptance of the alleged terms, and no contract can be enforced.
4. Grace period at the end not evidenced or applied
A grace period applies at the end of parking to allow a driver time to leave once the permitted parking time ends. The Operator has not demonstrated that it applied any grace period at all. It relies on ANPR entry/exit timestamps and does not show any calculation of an actual parked period, nor any allowance for time to depart.
The Operator is put to strict proof that a grace period was applied properly and that, even after applying it, a contravention is proven. In the absence of evidence, the charge must fail.
5. Inadequate signage and lack of proof that terms were properly brought to the driver’s attention
The Operator must prove that prominent, clear and readable signage was in place at the material time, including at the entrance, and that the key terms (including any maximum stay and the parking charge amount) were sufficiently prominent to form a contract.
The Operator is put to strict proof of:
a) Entrance signage that was readable from a driver’s perspective on entry, before any parking decision was made.
b) The number, locations and visibility of all signs throughout the site, evidenced by photographs in context showing distance, height, angle, lighting and any obstructions.
c) That the signage was present and materially the same on 22/09/2025.
d) That the parking charge amount was prominent and legible, not hidden in small print.
Close-up photographs of a single sign, or generic images, do not prove that a driver would have seen and read it at the material time. A site plan and driver-perspective photographs are required.
6. No proof of landowner authority (standing)
The Operator must have contemporaneous written authorisation from the landholder/occupier to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue charges in its own name at this site. The Operator is put to strict proof of its standing.
I require the Operator to produce an unredacted, contemporaneous landowner agreement (or a properly evidenced chain of authority) confirming:
a) The identity of the landholder/occupier.
b) The precise site boundary covered.
c) Authority to issue PCNs.
d) Authority to pursue charges in its own name, including litigation.
e) The dates and any relevant restrictions or conditions.
If the Operator fails to produce this, the charge must be cancelled.
7. ANPR accuracy, synchronisation and data integrity not proven
Because the Operator relies on ANPR timestamps, it must prove the system was accurate, synchronised and properly maintained.
I require the Operator to produce:
a) Maintenance and calibration records for the ANPR cameras at this site for the relevant period.
b) Evidence of time synchronisation procedures and checks.
c) Evidence of audit/compliance checks and data integrity.
d) The full ANPR data record for this vehicle for the date in question (not just two still images).
Without this, the Operator cannot discharge the burden of proof.
8. Evidence of genuine customer activity and supporting context (not relied upon as the primary ground)
The driver was a genuine paying customer at this site. Fuel was purchased and items were bought in the shop. The stop included normal, foreseeable customer activity at a petrol forecourt/retail site, including use of facilities before a long journey and urgent infant-care needs (changing and feeding a baby with a skin-sensitivity condition). Receipts were provided to the Operator.
This is supporting context only. The appeal must be allowed because the Operator has not established Keeper liability, has not proved any parked duration, has not proved that the terms were properly communicated and accepted, has not proved landowner authority, and has not proved ANPR reliability.
Summary
For all of the reasons above, I require POPLA to allow this appeal and direct Euro Car Parks to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Evidence enclosed
1. Receipts for fuel and in-store purchases.
2. Any available photographs of signage/entrance (if obtained).
3. A short timeline statement confirming this was a customer visit at a forecourt/retail site.
