DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 115929--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP PCN – Cardinal Park Ipswich
DIR By: Karl31
Date: April 15, 2026, 3:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve now received the rejection email from ECP and a POPLA
reference.
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/8kF0hc4g/page-0001.jpg
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> I have been developing a ECP appeal for POPLA which I feel
POPLA will find hard to refute.
>
--- End Quote ---
Is this ready to go please?
#Post#: 115958--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP PCN – Cardinal Park Ipswich
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: April 15, 2026, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Feel free;
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.
#Post#: 115991--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP PCN – Cardinal Park Ipswich
DIR By: Karl31
Date: April 15, 2026, 11:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is excellent. Much appreciated.
#Post#: 124062--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP PCN – Cardinal Park Ipswich
DIR By: Karl31
Date: July 8, 2026, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA appeal rejected. Please advise.
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/CKBq4pSD/Screenshot-2026-07-08-115411-(1).png
#Post#: 124151--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP PCN – Cardinal Park Ipswich
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 9, 2026, 2:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense from Mohsin Hussain.
He basically alters the meaning of the legislation in order to
accommodate the operators PCN.
Mohsin Hussain states "The relevant consideration is whether the
notice substantially conveys the information required by
Schedule 4" - That's completely untrue - the relevant
consideration is whether the notice meets ALL THE APPLICABLE
CONDITIONS UNDER SHEDULE 4 (that's the actual wording from the
statute.)
He changes the requirement of the legislation because the
operators NtK does not meet the requirements if the correct
wording is quoted - he is therefore circumventing the true
requirements with what amounts to a substitute wording - the
substitute wording is designed to introduce subjectivity in a
circumstance where objectivity (provided by the true wording)
would defeat the Assessor's proposed findings.
Mohsin Hussain states "PoFA does not require the statutory
wording to be reproduced verbatim" - your appeal never suggested
that it did - all your appeal did was to present the exact
wording of the legislation - it's not the appellant's fault that
the legislation is written that way - the Assessor is using a
'verbatim wording' argument to excuse the non-presence of a
whole paragraph - the NtK presents no alternative wording to
that required by 9(2)(e) and therefore the verbatim wording
argument is irrelevant - the Assessor is therefore directly
challenging the actual requirements of the legislation - the
legislation specifies that "The notice must state blah blah
blah" but the Assessor is claiming that the wording "must state"
does not really mean "must state" etc - in other words, the
Assessor is claiming the complete opposite of what the
legislation specifies.
Moshsin Hussaind sets out other requirements of 9(2) and
specifies that the NtK meets those requirements but this is just
a 'deflection technique' which attempts to move attention away
from your appeal points relating to the missing requirements of
9(2)(e) - notice how Mohsin is very careful to tiptoe around the
missing requirements of 9(2)(e) when trying to demonstrate
compliance?
I can try and come up with a complaint for POPLA - this is quite
a rare response from POPLA as they normally acknowledge that
total compliance with 9(2) is needed in order to invoke keeper
liability - this is also the first time I've seen an Assessor
acknowledge missing wording.
#Post#: 124193--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP PCN – Cardinal Park Ipswich
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 9, 2026, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA Complaint.
POPLA Code -
POPLA Assessor - Mohsin Hussain.
Dear Lead Assessor,
I am writing to formally complain about the incorrect assessment
carried out by Mohsin Hussain.
In his assessment, Mohsin clearly attempts to establish PoFA
'keeper liability' in a circumstance where such liability can
never occur.
This complaint purely relates to the keeper liability issue and
not the final outcome - I say this as the final outcome is not
binding on myself.
Background-
The basis of my original appeal was that the NtK issued by the
operator was not PoFA complaint since is omitted a significant
section of mandatory information required by Schedule 4
Paragraph 9(2)(e).
POPLA Assessor's have consistently stated that total compliance
with all conditions relating to paragraph 9(2) is required in
order to invoke keeper liability.
Mistakes-
In his assessment, Mohsin Hussain makes a number of critical
errors which demonstrate they he does not correctly understand
the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4.
In my appeal I pointed out that the required mandatory wording
and two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' was not set out - this
is the specific requirement of 9(2)(e).
The parking operator was not able to rebut my appeal because the
wording is simply not present.
However, Mohsin steps in and immediately starts to advocate on
the parking operators behalf.
Mohsin states, "While the appellant submits that the notice does
not reproduce the wording of Paragraph 9(2)(e) exactly, PoFA
does not require the statutory wording to be reproduced
verbatim." - I should point out that I have never suggested that
'exact' verbatim replication was required - I have simply
specified (in my appeal) exactly what the legislation states
word for word - it is Mohsin who has jumped to the conclusion
that the legislation is demanding 'verbatim wording' in terms of
9(2)(e).
I accept that verbatim wording is not required.
However, what is legally required is what is known as 'correct
construction' - Correct construction is the construction of a
sentence which exactly replicates the requirements of the
sentence set out in the legislation - it is notable that Mohsin
never attempts to convey the requirements of 'correct
construction' in his assessment since conveying this information
would be damaging to the parking operators position.
The parking operators NtK contains no wording which meets the
requirements of 9(2)(e) verbatim or otherwise - their NtK simply
skips over the requirements of 9(2)(e).
As such, the verbatim wording argument put forward by Mohsin
Hussain is irrelevant since no alternative wording is present on
the NtK.
It is therefore obvious that Mohsin is attempting to use the
verbatim wording argument to imply that the operator does not
have to meet the requirements of 9(2)(e).
This is a massive error since the verbatim wording argument does
not invalidate the requirement that any alternative wording must
meet the rules of correct construction - most critically, no
alternative wording is mentioned by Mohsin as no alternative
wording is present on the NtK.
Secondly, having stated that verbatim wording is not required,
Mohsin states, "The relevant consideration is whether the notice
substantially conveys the information required by Schedule 4" -
this is a blatant misrepresentation of the requirements of PoFA
Schedule 4 since the legislation specifies that compliance is
required with ALL conditions of the Schedule.
Paragraph 9(1) specifies;
A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the
purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this
paragraph if the following requirements are met - condition
9(2)(e) is one of those requirements.
This is then reinforced by Paragraph 9(2)(f) which specifies;
the creditor will (IF ALL APPLICABLE CONDITIONS UNDER THIS
SHEDULE ARE MET) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid - the key word there is
"ALL" - partial or even substantial compliance is clearly not
compliance with ALL CONDITIONS.
In very simple terms, it is entirely obvious that Mohsin is
attempting to apply a reasoning which introduces considerable
subjectivity to the requirements of the Schedule in a
circumstance where he recognises that his Client's NtK is not
complaint - Mohsin introduces his subjective wording because he
recognises that the wording of the Schedule is totally objective
and would leave no such room to manoeuvre.
Thirdly, Mohsin then runs through just a few of the conditions
set out in paragraph 9(2) - he ticks several of the conditions
off - however, and most notably, he deliberately avoids a
demonstration of compliance with my specific appeal condition,
namely; 9(2)(e) - this is because he still cannot meet the
condition of 9(2)(e) - the wording and two limbed invitation to
the keeper is simply not present in any guise.
At the end of the day, it is clear from the outset that the
Assessor recognised that the NtK was not totally compliant - if
it was in fact compliant he would have simply quoted the
required wording directly from the NtK. However, instead of
simply acknowledging its non-complaint nature, Mohsin took it on
himself to bend or ignore as many requirements as needed in
order to make his Client's NtK seem compliant.
The NtK does not meet the requirement of condition 9(2)(e) and
there for it cannot be said that 'all the applicable conditions
under this section have been met' - keeper liability cannot
therefore occur.
I would also point out that Mohsin's comments on 'substantial
compliance' completely contradict hundreds of POPLA assessments
which are posted online where POPLA Assessors consistently state
that 'total compliance is required'.
I look forward to your considered response.
Many thanks,
xxxxx xxxxxxxxx
#Post#: 124216--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP PCN – Cardinal Park Ipswich
DIR By: Karl31
Date: July 9, 2026, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sent! Appreciate your speed, you put POPLA to shame.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page