DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 117605--------------------------------------------------
Euro Car Parks - Permit didn't cover time of park - No NTK/final
notice only - Wish St Car Park, Rye
DIR By: deerling
Date: May 2, 2026, 8:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear lovely helpful people,
It is currently day 24 since the letter was printed (9/04/26)
and I understand I must send an appeal on day 25 or 26 from
advice on these forums, so may have to go ahead if no one sees
this and hope all is well.
I have recieved a final notification letter over a month after
the date of issue stated on the PCN for a vehicle I am keeper
of, stating the permit purchased did not cover the date and time
of parking. I have recieved no other letter or notification. I
have read the newbie thread on moneysavingexpert and reasoned I
could try altering their template (omitting that they haven't
explained what it is for, as they have?)- times are stated but
there are no photographs.
There was a sick dog in the car and the driver no longer has any
tickets from any machines so as there isn't proof of how long
was paid for or the times on the printed ticket, I am wondering
if it can be contested. I have encouraged looking for any card
payments incase it was not cash.
Having researched this car park I have discovered the cameras
start counting from the moment of passing the threshold, not
from when the car is actually parked, so the time on the ticket
is unlikely to match up with the camera times- I found a forum
post by someone who had been fined for 5 seconds! Also evidence
people are charged who didnt even park.
This car park was in articles in 2024 for it's unfairness and
seems the machine is often on the blink- the following link
contains signage images for 2024. I am unaware what the grace
period is meant to be for this car park.
HTML https://www.ryenews.org.uk/news/wish-street-car-park-fines
Street view :
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/EF9P7MA59M7HQn8X6
Has a
photo of machine sign from 2026.
My research attempts seem to tell me it may not be POFA
compliant if there was no notice to keeper?
HTML https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/
To my mind at the least they should reduce it to the lower
amount and that is all my family believes I should be asking to
avoid risk (shall I add this to my appeal), but it sounds like
if they are not compliant the whole thing is void?
Images of PCN:
HTML https://imgbox.com/TmfhjXfo
HTML https://imgbox.com/zVSUkNS2
Thus:
'Dear Euro Car Parks team,
I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle- I
have recieved a final notification letter but no other contact
or notice to keeper, breaching POFA.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no
assumptions can be drawn as the notice is not POFA compliant.
Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of
the allegation with evidence. You must include a close up actual
photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the
material date as well as your images/footage of the vehicle.
If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in
response to this appeal must include the record of payments made
- showing partial VRNs.
If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your
evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the
landowner.
Kind regards'
I have not appealed a fine before even when unfair, so posting
to be sure, apologies for any repeats- I have been looking.
Family going on about points on licence if this goes to court!
Thanks for your time, energy and have a lovely day!
#Post#: 117695--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Permit didn't cover time of park - No
NTK/final notice only - Wish St Car Park, Rye
DIR By: Dave65
Date: May 4, 2026, 4:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a civil matter and small claims court, there is no
chance of anything happening with a driving licence.
Also, if it went all the way to court it is most usually that
ECP will discontinue the case before paying the court fee.
#Post#: 118916--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Permit didn't cover time of park - No
NTK/final notice only - Wish St Car Park,
DIR By: deerling
Date: May 16, 2026, 5:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
.
#Post#: 118918--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Permit didn't cover time of park - No
NTK/final notice only - Wish St Car Park, Rye
DIR By: deerling
Date: May 16, 2026, 5:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I now have a rejection letter from ECP that includes the
original NTK they supposedly sent (I suppose I shall have to
presume they actually did). I do not know if it not arriving is
any kind of breach that is useful (I thought NTKs had to arrive
within 14 days of the event) but they say they don't have to
prove it arrived and isn't their fault if it was not recieved.
The photo of the sign was in their email.
HTML https://imgbox.com/REMBBji4
HTML https://imgbox.com/x1CF3PUP
HTML https://imgbox.com/TCburcU4
HTML https://imgbox.com/cA598dHZ
HTML https://imgbox.com/PEHghsDP
I am unsure if there is grounds for me going further with this
or not - I cannot figure out if their letter is compliant or
not, despite trying to educate myself and also reading some
POPLA rejection/acceptance threads. Sometimes the assessor is
satisfied it is compliant when it seemed they weren't, so the
charge did transfer to the keeper. It seems risky to presume
they won't go to court because they might reason they would win?
The charge was issued 2 mins before the ticket time ran out,
confirmed by the data they provided, so the charge must be for
the time it took to get the ticket in the first place (total
time from crossing the threshold of the carpark to leaving the
threshold- 2hrs 12mins) and it seems unreasonable to expect that
not to take a little time. But perhaps a court would say that is
too long, I have no idea.
I don't think there is enough grounds to say the signs weren't
clear, though very busy, as it does say there will be a charge
for overstaying, but I do not think all the people getting fined
there and saying they won't go back to the area full stop are
realising it means they are not allowing any time between
driving in and getting the ticket- who would expect the time on
their ticket to be false!
I could claim the leaving time is blurred on their photograph,
perhaps.
I haven't contacted POPLA yet and have 14 days since the 8th, so
until the 22nd to pay this charge as keeper, or 5th June to
appeal to POPLA.
I understand from the POPLA rejection letters that mentioning
previous cases in he same car park is not relevant to the
assessors so I presume articles about it are much the same.
#Post#: 118920--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Permit didn't cover time of park - No
NTK/final notice only - Wish St Car Park, Rye
DIR By: deerling
Date: May 16, 2026, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Dave65 link ---
>
> This is a civil matter and small claims court, there is no
chance of anything happening with a driving licence.
>
> Also, if it went all the way to court it is most usually that
ECP will discontinue the case before paying the court fee.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks Dave, hard to be confident when it's the first time
you're doing anything like this. If it seems they would win
though I presume they would go to court?
#Post#: 118924--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Permit didn't cover time of park - No
NTK/final notice only - Wish St Car Park, Rye
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: May 17, 2026, 1:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can we assume that you have been provided with a POPLA code?
#Post#: 118925--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Permit didn't cover time of park - No
NTK/final notice only - Wish St Car Park, Rye
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: May 17, 2026, 1:43 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
#Post#: 118941--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Permit didn't cover time of park - No
NTK/final notice only - Wish St Car Park, Rye
DIR By: Dave65
Date: May 17, 2026, 5:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The £100 is among the small print on the signage, as apposed to
many signs of other PPC`s.
It should be in bold print and obvious.
Worth adding to your defence.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1