DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 116634--------------------------------------------------
Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: Needadvice
Date: April 21, 2026, 6:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Can anybody advise on this parking charge notice from Euro Car
Parks please, is this worth appealing?
The registered keeper has received a Parking Charge Notice from
Euro Car Parks relating to a stay at an M&S car park in
Beckenham.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/WWUkitS3TRQ2GaYx8
Car park limit: 90 minutes
ANPR recorded stay: 1 hour 43 minutes (entry 13:15:32, exit
14:58:24), with ANPR photos of the vehicle number plate on
entry/exit
Date of event: 6 April 2026 (Bank Holiday Monday)
PCN issued: 13 April 2026
£85 charge, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days
The driver entered the car park and, due to it being a busy bank
holiday, it took some time to find a space.
Signage is present at the entrance, near the shop entrance, and
in parts of the main car park. However, the driver eventually
parked in a smaller bay (approx. 6 spaces) on the opposite side
where there were no visible signs at all (photos available).
On leaving, there was congestion: a one-way exit with no
alternative routes, and a queue of cars waiting at traffic
lights with a long cycle. This caused delays exiting the site.
The Notice to Keeper is dated 13 April but was only received on
20 April, so a week of the reduced payment period has already
passed.
Any guidance on the best approach and likelihood of success
would be much appreciated. Is it worth appealing to Euro Car
Parks first (and then to POPLA if rejected)?
Many thanks in advance.
photos uploaded on ibb, links here:
HTML https://ibb.co/Cptrk593
HTML https://ibb.co/3549mbCH
HTML https://ibb.co/gFTP259r
HTML https://ibb.co/LDB03Tym
HTML https://ibb.co/M5Dyyf6P
HTML https://ibb.co/cc2x594W
HTML https://ibb.co/MyV5sv57
HTML https://ibb.co/xKKWcMtL
HTML https://ibb.co/WNSjTyr1
HTML https://ibb.co/5hXF0vmJ
HTML https://ibb.co/S433zzND
HTML https://ibb.co/k2C7MH8b
HTML https://ibb.co/d0WqMQKF
HTML https://ibb.co/V0gnX0qj
HTML https://ibb.co/mCh7tP4g
HTML https://ibb.co/sJ1wF0CJ
#Post#: 116638--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: RichardW
Date: April 22, 2026, 1:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You could appeal on the basis that you were unable to leave due
to traffic congestion - they will probably reject, but it puts
them on notice. Make sure you appeal as keeper only, and refer
to the driver in the 3rd person. The PCN is missing the
invitation to pay or name the driver which is a point for POPLA
or the small claims court if it goes that far. The signage may
be a point for POPLA as well - it looks like you parked in the
small bay on the right of the entrance - if there are no signs
as you enter, and turn into this area, then you could argue for
inadequate signage as well - but this will not hold much water
if you drove around the carpark 3 times first, past all the
other signs, and then entered the store passing the sign at the
door (there is one shown on Street View, but it refers to
different terms)!
This appears to be an M&S owned car park, so, assuming you were
a customer, you should also get on to them and ask them to get
it cancelled.
#Post#: 116751--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: Needadvice
Date: April 22, 2026, 5:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, thank you very much for your advice. I really appreciate you
taking the time to respond.
Just to clarify a couple of points:
The keeper did contact M&S to see if they could help cancelling
the charge, but they advised that it is not their car park and
is privately managed, so they were unable to help.
Regarding the layout, the bay where the driver parked is
actually just before the exit. What is quite unusual is that all
the signage appears to be positioned on the opposite side of
that bay. On the side where the vehicle was parked, there are no
visible signs at all, despite there being plenty of space for
them. It does feel somewhat disconnected from the rest of the
car park in that sense. I take your point about signage being
present elsewhere, though.
Also, thank you for mentioning the wording point on the notice.
Looking at it more closely, it seems to include some elements of
the requirements under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule
4, but the wording appears somewhat fragmented and spread out
rather than set out clearly in one place. Would it be correct to
understand that this part needs to meet a fairly strict standard
in terms of how the “invitation” is presented?
Thank you very much again for your help.
#Post#: 116765--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: Dave65
Date: April 23, 2026, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The keeper did contact M&S to see if they could help cancelling
the charge, but they advised that it is not their car park and
is privately managed, so they were unable to help.
Yet the signage says it is managed on behalf of M&S!
#Post#: 116819--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: Needadvice
Date: April 23, 2026, 3:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
it does sound like the store staff just didn’t want to get
involved.
I might try again with someone else at a quieter time. After
reading some similar cases on here, the point about the NtK
potentially missing important bits is very valuable. Thanks for
pointing it out [member=885]RichardW[/member].
#Post#: 117094--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: Needadvice
Date: April 27, 2026, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Quick update, the keeper went back to M&S and asked again about
cancelling, but was told they can’t cancel as it’s
managed separately. So looks like the only option now is to
proceed with an appeal.
Draft appeal below, any obvious issues before submitting,
please?
Also, one more thing that came up when speaking to the store
staff, they mentioned that the land is actually owned by a
church, not M&S, which is why they said they couldn’t get
involved. However, the signage on site says it’s managed
on behalf of M&S.
Would that kind of inconsistency be worth raising in terms of
landowner authority, i.e. asking Euro Car Parks to prove they
have the right to operate and issue charges there? Or is that
unlikely to add much in this case?
***
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing
this Parking Charge Notice.
The charge is disputed on the following grounds:
1. No evidence of the required “period of parking”
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a),
as it fails to specify the period of parking.
The notice relies solely on ANPR images showing entry and exit
times. These do not represent the period of parking, as they
include time spent entering, locating a space, and exiting the
car park.
2. Failure to account for time not spent parked (grace periods
and congestion)
The recorded duration includes time spent:
- locating a parking space in a busy car park, and
- queuing to exit due to congestion and a one-way system with
traffic lights
This is not parking time and must not be included in any
calculation of a parking period.
3. Inadequate signage in the area where the vehicle was parked
The vehicle was parked in a small bay (approximately 6 spaces)
near the exit where there was no visible signage at all.
Signage in other parts of the car park does not sufficiently
bring the terms and conditions to the attention of drivers
parking in this specific area.
As such, no clear contract could have been formed.
4. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper appears not to fully comply with the
mandatory wording and requirements of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including the requirement to
clearly and properly set out the conditions under which keeper
liability may apply.
As such, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
5. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary
authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking
charges at this site.
There appears to be inconsistency regarding the land ownership
and management arrangements. Signage suggests the site is
managed on behalf of Marks & Spencer, while it has been
indicated that the land may be owned by a third party.
The operator is required to demonstrate that it has a valid and
current contract with the landowner (or authorised agent),
including the authority to:
- issue parking charge notices, and
- pursue them to recovery
In the absence of such evidence, the charge is invalid.
***
Thank you very much once again.
#Post#: 117134--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: April 27, 2026, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ECP will not uphold the appeal but there is a better chance with
POPLA since ECP PCNs are not PoFA compliant.
#Post#: 117155--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: Needadvice
Date: April 27, 2026, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you [member=6750]InterCity125[/member], would it be ok to
consider this draft for POPLA, I want to make sure that I raise
relevant points from the outset. Thank you
#Post#: 118912--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: Needadvice
Date: May 16, 2026, 5:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Update on this case. I have now received the rejection letter
from ECP following my initial appeal and they have provided a
POPLA code. I am attaching the rejection letter (with address
and number plate redacted). Hope you can see the letter through
the link here:
HTML https://ibb.co/XxmQcWCx
I would really appreciate it if someone experienced could
comment on whether the points raised in my draft would be
suitable for a POPLA appeal, whether anything important is
missing, or if there is anything that could strengthen my
chances. And if the format is also suitable.
Thank you very much
*******
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing
this Parking Charge Notice.
The charge is disputed on the following grounds:
1. No evidence of the required “period of parking”
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a),
as it fails to specify the period of parking.
The notice relies solely on ANPR images showing entry and exit
times. These do not represent the period of parking, as they
include time spent entering, locating a space, and exiting the
car park.
2. Failure to account for time not spent parked (grace periods
and congestion)
The recorded duration includes time spent:
- locating a parking space in a busy car park, and
- queuing to exit due to congestion and a one-way system with
traffic lights
This is not parking time and must not be included in any
calculation of a parking period.
3. Inadequate signage in the area where the vehicle was parked
The vehicle was parked in a small bay (approximately 6 spaces)
near the exit where there was no visible signage at all.
Signage in other parts of the car park does not sufficiently
bring the terms and conditions to the attention of drivers
parking in this specific area.
As such, no clear contract could have been formed.
4. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper appears not to fully comply with the
mandatory wording and requirements of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including the requirement to
clearly and properly set out the conditions under which keeper
liability may apply.
As such, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
5. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary
authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking
charges at this site.
There appears to be inconsistency regarding the land ownership
and management arrangements. Signage suggests the site is
managed on behalf of Marks & Spencer, while it has been
indicated that the land may be owned by a third party.
The operator is required to demonstrate that it has a valid and
current contract with the landowner (or authorised agent),
including the authority to:
- issue parking charge notices, and
- pursue them to recovery
In the absence of such evidence, the charge is invalid.
#Post#: 118926--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: May 17, 2026, 1:48 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.
Best wishes,
xxxxx xxxxxxx
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page