DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121855--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: Needadvice
Date: June 15, 2026, 9:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Update on my POPLA appeal.
I have now received the operator's evidence pack from Euro Car
Parks in response to my POPLA appeal. POPLA has given me 7 days
to provide comments on the evidence before the appeal is
assessed.
I have attached/uploaded the full evidence pack and would be
very grateful if the forum advisers could review it and suggest
the strongest points for my POPLA comments, as I have limited
time to respond.
The PDF file is available through the Dropbox here
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0fsnshuanls8y5csa88ux/Europarks-response-to-POPLA-appeal_Dropbox.pdf?rlkey=ophucmizi3z0yyvq27am2ytxn&st=nff8uakv&dl=0
Having reviewed the evidence myself, my initial observations are
as follows:
1. Euro Car Parks appears to rely on generic statements and
standard template responses rather than addressing all of the
specific points raised in my appeal.
2. In relation to signage, they have provided photographs of
signs located in other parts of the car park, but they have not
addressed my specific point regarding the area where my vehicle
was parked and where I maintain there is no visible signage.
3. They continue to rely on ANPR entry and exit times but have
not addressed my point that these times do not establish the
actual parking period. The evidence does not identify when the
vehicle was parked in a bay, only when it entered and exited the
site.
4. They have not properly addressed the issue of grace periods
and the distinction between time spent driving around looking
for a space, time spent parked, and time spent queuing to leave
the site. This was a busy Bank Holiday period and there was
congestion within the car park and at the exit. The ANPR times
include these periods, which are not the same as the actual
period of parking.
5. I do not believe they have fully addressed my concerns
regarding compliance of the PCN.
Before I submit my POPLA comments, I would be grateful for any
advice on:
• Which points are strongest to focus on;
• Whether there are any weaknesses or omissions in the
operator's evidence;
• Whether the signage evidence provided is sufficient to rebut
my appeal points;
• Any specific wording I should use in my POPLA comments.
I also converted all 38 pages of the pack from Europarks into
images and uploaded them on IBB, here are the links:
HTML https://ibb.co/HTGBKz0p
HTML https://ibb.co/yBQNkryW
HTML https://ibb.co/P7FFZXW
HTML https://ibb.co/r2d2zpBC
HTML https://ibb.co/ZRkjHNkD
HTML https://ibb.co/fdckzLbW
HTML https://ibb.co/GvzZFjvN
HTML https://ibb.co/wFv26kJB
HTML https://ibb.co/bgHbRfND
HTML https://ibb.co/Knmr0X2
HTML https://ibb.co/JFc0D2j4
HTML https://ibb.co/ywjQV1Y
HTML https://ibb.co/BHHjVTdF
HTML https://ibb.co/qLtrbWZN
HTML https://ibb.co/4wLVRnRb
HTML https://ibb.co/S4Fs94mB
HTML https://ibb.co/TBFMzyvF
HTML https://ibb.co/nMTX2rYQ
HTML https://ibb.co/9m3Fz0Dk
HTML https://ibb.co/2YCPnN71
HTML https://ibb.co/0prWTyTb
HTML https://ibb.co/cSWQZKJB
HTML https://ibb.co/nsTMMfkL
HTML https://ibb.co/bRm0vP2D
HTML https://ibb.co/JFGXwmhH
HTML https://ibb.co/whr11mQK
HTML https://ibb.co/tTXCXjQv
HTML https://ibb.co/QFZHRCpx
HTML https://ibb.co/0VRqwhZ8
HTML https://ibb.co/Ng4nJbbF
HTML https://ibb.co/hRyCwM2c
HTML https://ibb.co/s9xdx3my
HTML https://ibb.co/KzVQz8Lj
HTML https://ibb.co/MkdSbGmF
HTML https://ibb.co/Lzqkwtk4
HTML https://ibb.co/TBrBHZm5
HTML https://ibb.co/SXfS5BWC
HTML https://ibb.co/h562kr8
#Post#: 121907--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 16, 2026, 1:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Could you post up the text of your appeal?
Did you use the individual appeal point?
#Post#: 122090--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: Needadvice
Date: June 17, 2026, 6:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> Could you post up the text of your appeal?
>
> Did you use the individual appeal point?
>
--- End Quote ---
Hello @ InterCity125,
Apologies for the delay to revert. here is the text of my POPLA
appeal as submitted:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing
this Parking Charge Notice as keeper only, since the driver is
not known to the operator. The driver has not been identified.
I understand that, under POPLA rules, I must set out my appeal
points and the operator must rebut them.
APPEAL POINT ONE – Non-compliance with Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and
9(2)(e)(ii).
The operator’s Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the
mandatory wording and requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph
9(2)(e).
In particular, the NtK does not contain the mandatory wording:
“the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a
current address for service for the driver”.
Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) sets out the
following;
Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires that the notice must:
•
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, to notify the creditor of
the name and current service address of the driver and to pass
the notice to the driver.
An examination of the operator’s NtK reveals that the statutory
wording is not present.
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 operator’s NtK does not set out the
mandatory two-limbed invitation to the keeper to either pay the
unpaid
parking charges or nominate another driver.
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'.
Once again here, Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires that the notice
must:
•
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, to notify the creditor of
the name and current service address of the driver and to pass
the notice to the driver.
An examination of the operator’s NtK reveals that the NtK fails
to provide the required two-limbed invitation to the keeper.
Both above conditions must be satisfied in order for the
operator to rely on PoFA and transfer liability from the driver
to the keeper. 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-limbed 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'.
An examination of the operators NtK reveals that there is no
clear invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking
charges, as specifically required by paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
Once 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 note that
terminology such as “notified” or “advised” is not equivalent to
the statutory requirement of an “invitation to the keeper” under
paragraph 9(2)(e). The wording used in the legislation is
specific and must be properly reflected in the Notice to Keeper.
Please also note that, the parking operator is required to meet
‘all applicable conditions' under Schedule 4 in order to hold
the keeper liable for the unpaid charges.
The operator’s references to keeper liability and paragraph
9(2)(f) do not remove the separate requirement to fully comply
with paragraph 9(2)(e).
As the NtK does not comply with the mandatory requirements of
PoFA, liability cannot be transferred from driver to keeper.
I therefore put the operator to strict proof of full PoFA
compliance and ask the operator to specifically rebut these
appeal points by identifying where the mandatory wording appears
on the NtK.
APPEAL POINT FOUR – No evidence of the required period of actual
parking.
The NtK relies solely on ANPR images showing entry and exit
times. These do not establish the actual period of parking as
required by PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a).
ANPR captures vehicle movements entering and exiting the site,
rather than the actual period during which the vehicle was
parked.
APPEAL POINT FIVE – Failure to account for non-parking time /
grace periods.
The recorded duration includes time spent:
• locating a parking space in a busy car park
• queuing to exit due to congestion, traffic lights and the
one-way system
This is not parking time and should not form part of any alleged
parking period. The recorded time includes time spent entering
the site, locating a parking space, manoeuvring, and exiting the
site, including delays caused by congestion and traffic lights
immediately outside the car park exit on what was a particularly
busy bank holiday period.
APPEAL POINT SIX – Inadequate signage
There is inadequate signage in the small bay area near the exit
of the car park where no visible terms and conditions signage is
present.
The terms and conditions were not adequately brought to the
attention of drivers using this specific area of the car park
and therefore no contract could have been formed.
APPEAL POINT SEVEN – No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary
landowner authority to issue and enforce parking charges at this
site.
The operator is required to produce an unredacted
contemporaneous contract showing authority to issue parking
charges and pursue them to recovery.
In the absence of such evidence, the operator has failed to
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In light of all the above,
I request that the charge be cancelled.
#Post#: 122169--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 18, 2026, 1:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Euro Car Parks evidence.
I note with interest that ECP have not engaged with any of my
evidence or specific appeal points.
This appears to mean an automatic win for the appellant since
the operator is required to rebut each appeal point under POPLA
rules?
However, I note from other appeals on the internet that POPLA
Assessors often break from protocol and ignore these specific
rules.
I will therefore make the following comments based on what the
operator has submitted.
The operator has submitted a generic evidence pack rather than
an evidence pack / response in keeping with my appeal.
This appears deliberate and I believe that they have taken this
approach as they are unable to rebut non PoFA compliance appeal
points using their own NtK because the NtK does not meet the
requirements for either wording or format.
I will once again highlight the short comings of the operators
NtK.
I would request that the POPLA Assessor keeps firmly to my
appeal points in order to make sure all appeal points are
addressed using the legislation.
PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b) specifies;
"The notice must inform the keeper that the driver is required
to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of
parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full"
However, the operator's notice specifies;
"You are now advised under the paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the
motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full."
You will immediately notice that the operator's sentence fails
to meet the complete requirements of 9(2)(b) - whilst they
specify that the driver is required to pay the parking charge,
the sentence fails to state the second part of the requirement,
namely; that the parking charges have not been paid in full.
In order to demonstrate integrity and transparency, if the POPLA
Assessor believes that the notice does contain the sentence (the
parking charges have not been paid in full) required by 9(2)(b),
I would respectfully ask the Assessor to quote, verbatim, the
sentence from the NtK which meets the two requirements of
9(2)(b).
The missing information is immediately fatal to the operators
reliance on PoFA as total compliance is required.
Further,
PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) specifies 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—
Sub-paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(2)(ii) then set out both the
wording and format for the two conditions of the invitation
which 9(2)(e) requires.
The two conditions must be separated by the word 'or' - the word
'or' has a defined legal meaning in legislation so must be
contained in the invitation.
The compliant sentence would therefore read as follows; (or
something very close)
Your are notified under paragraph 9(2)(e) of schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the creditor does not know
both the name of the driver and a current address for service
for the driver - the keeper is therefore invited to (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."
The required paragraph containing the statutory wording and two
limbed invitation (separated by the word 'or') is not present on
the operator's NtK.
Once again this immediately fatal to the operator's reliance on
PoFA.
When examined, the operators NtK jumps directly from their
(incorrect) version of 9(2)(b) straight onto the requirements of
9(2)(f) - the requirements of 9(2)(e) are totally over looked.
Once again, in order to demonstrate integrity and transparency,
if the POPLA Assessor believes that the notice does contain the
sentence which specifies both the mandatory wording and two
limbed invitation then I would respectfully ask the Assessor to
quote, verbatim, the sentence from the NtK which meets all the
requirements of 9(2)(e) along with the two conditions of the
keeper invitation specified in sub-paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and
9(2)(e)(ii).
This information is not present.
I am happy that paragraph 9(2)(f) is present and compliant but
the presence of 9(2)(f) does not negate the requirements of
9(2)(b) and 9(2)(e).
You could then add your further points on signage etc.
#Post#: 122178--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: Needadvice
Date: June 18, 2026, 4:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much!
#Post#: 126821--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks_ Overstayed max time_M&S
foodhall_Beckenham
DIR By: Needadvice
Date: August 4, 2026, 11:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello [member=6750]InterCity125[/member], all,
I wanted to follow up on my case. My POPLA appeal has just come
back as unsuccessful, and I would appreciate some advice on the
next steps. I have copied the full decision below for reference.
One point I am particularly unsure about is the PoFA issue. In
my original appeal, I specifically requested that POPLA address
how the PCN complied with the individual requirements of
Schedule 4, paragraph 9, including the relevant statutory
wording and information required. However, the assessor’s
response simply states that the notice “does meet the
requirements” without explaining any details.
The decision also appears to rely heavily on the ANPR entry and
exit times as evidence of the parking period.
Are there any points in the POPLA reasoning that stand out as
potentially challengeable? Is there any realistic route to
request further clarification regarding the PoFA compliance
assessment, or is the matter effectively closed at this stage?
Any advice on the best next steps would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Here is the full, unedited text of the assessor response with
rationale:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to
overstaying the maximum time period allowed.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds
of appeal. For the purposes of my decision, I have summarised
these below. • Non-compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 Schedule 4. • ANPR images showing entry and exit times and
do not establish the actual period of parking. • Failure to
account for non-parking time / grace periods. • There is
inadequate signage in the small bay area near the exit of the
car park where no visible terms and conditions signage is
present. • No evidence of landowner authority. On reviewing the
case file, the appellant maintains their grounds of appeal. In
support of their appeal, the appellant provided a copy of the
parking charge and a photos of the bays and car park.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has
issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car
park displayed on the signs located within the car park. When
parking on a private car park, the driver forms a parking
contract with the parking operator. The terms and conditions of
this contract are displayed on the signage located throughout
the car park. Therefore, the driver is responsible for seeking
out these signs, reviewing the displayed terms and conditions
and complying with these. The signs on this site confirm welcome
to M&S, please follow the conditions below to avoid parking
charges while you shop with us. Maximum stay 90 minutes. Failure
to comply with the above will result in the issue of a £85
parking charge notice. The operator has provided photographic
evidence the vehicle remained on site for 1 hour 43 minutes.
POPLA is an evidence-based service, and I can only base my
decision on the evidence presented. The appellant states that
there is non-compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Schedule 4. I can confirm that the notice sent has been reviewed
against section Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and it does meet the requirements. The
appellant states that ANPR images showing entry and exit times
and do not establish the actual period of parking. Section 2.19
(a) of the Single Code of Practice explains that parking is when
a vehicle enters and remains within a controlled site. Using
ANPR images to show how long a vehicle was within a site is
sufficient to prove if the terms and conditions of the parking
contract have been breached. The appellant states that there has
been a failure to account for non-parking time / grace periods.
Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking
operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking
period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other
than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free period of
parking. In this case, the motorist overstayed the maximum time
period by 13 minutes, meaning that the 10 minute grace period
was also exceeded. The appellant states that there is inadequate
signage in the small bay area near the exit of the car park
where no visible terms and conditions signage is present.
Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the
requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The
signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have
the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their
vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous,
using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. In
this case the operator's evidence clearly demonstrates that
there is sufficient signage in situ throughout the car park.
Ultimately it is the driver’s responsibility to seek the
signage, review the displayed terms and conditions and comply
with them. The appellant said that there is no evidence of
landowner authority. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where
controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner,
written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge
can be issued. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal
meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied
that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the
date of the parking event. POPLA’s role is to assess if the
operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of
the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have
not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN
correctly, and the appeal is refused.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page