DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113249--------------------------------------------------
EuroCarParks - Luton Sainsbury
DIR By: h789
Date: March 14, 2026, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Sorting through my mail and I just realised I had a NtK from
euro car parks for overstaying in Sainsburys in Luton, issued on
12/02/2026 with payment to be made 13/03/2026 (yesterday). No
idea how I completely missed this, was wondering if an appeal is
still possible (and likely here to succeed), or the best course
of action is to pay.
I have attached the NtK. Thank you in advance
HTML https://ibb.co/LXdvmZs9
HTML https://ibb.co/QFBpFSQ4
#Post#: 113257--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks - Luton Sainsbury
DIR By: Dave65
Date: March 14, 2026, 11:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have a look at the post below yours.
EuroCarParks Sainsburys by Surf London, it may help your issue.
#Post#: 113262--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks - Luton Sainsbury
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 14, 2026, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/eurocarparks-sainsburys-overstay/
#Post#: 113263--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks - Luton Sainsbury
DIR By: h789
Date: March 14, 2026, 12:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, I have responded with the following
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> 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. 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
My concern is that, given it is a day after the deadline to
respond, will this void my appeal, and if so and I have no
recourse then would just be better to pay now and avoid any
further headache?
#Post#: 113264--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks - Luton Sainsbury
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 14, 2026, 1:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s their “deadline” and in any case these companies usually
deny valid appeals anyway.
If you have a valid reason not to pay, then you need to follow
the process, probably meaning that you have to enter a defence
to a court claim.
In due course, they will probably give up.
But you should search the forum for similar cases.
I don’t think many if any victims of ECP end up paying if they
stay the course.
#Post#: 113302--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks - Luton Sainsbury
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 15, 2026, 6:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've been working on a new POPLA appeal document for Euro Car
Parks so feel free to reach out once ECP reject your initial
appeal which probably won't take long.
#Post#: 115644--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks - Luton Sainsbury
DIR By: h789
Date: April 12, 2026, 12:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Have received the rejection back and will now make the POPLA
appeal. Any advice on what to include would be greatly
appreciated.
[img]
HTML https://ibb.co/tMDSJ5Wc[/img]
#Post#: 115667--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks - Luton Sainsbury
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: April 13, 2026, 1:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1