DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 122526--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN - Parked without a valid Pay by Phone
transaction- Horse & Barge, Reading
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 21, 2026, 6:25 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.
Simply stating that, "our notice is compliant" does not make it
compliant - it does not matter how many time the operator states
this and continually stating this does not make this missing
wording magically appear.
Furthermore, the operators failure to correctly engage in the
rebuttal process is potentially detrimental to the appellant as
the operator is expecting the POPLA Assessor to generate the
individual rebuttal points on their behalf - this is not the
Assessor's role in the formal process.
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).
#Post#: 122529--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN - Parked without a valid Pay by Phone
transaction- Horse & Barge, Reading
DIR By: Riz101
Date: June 21, 2026, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks!
I will respond with the exact wording in your post.
Regards
R
#Post#: 122551--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN - Parked without a valid Pay by Phone
transaction- Horse & Barge, Reading
DIR By: Riz101
Date: June 21, 2026, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Response posted now, fingers crossed !
#Post#: 127093--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN - Parked without a valid Pay by Phone
transaction- Horse & Barge, Reading
DIR By: Riz101
Date: August 6, 2026, 5:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, how would I proceed from here?
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
----
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
on the basis that the vehicle was parked without a valid
PayByPhone transaction covering the full duration of the stay.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. For ease
of reference, I will refer to the registered keeper as the
appellant throughout this decision. The appellant has challenged
the PCN on the basis that the notice is not compliant with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and that they do not
consider the parking operator has established liability for the
charge. After reviewing the operator’s evidence pack, the
appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal. I acknowledge
the appellant’s comments regarding the evidence provided and the
handling of the appeal. POPLA’s role is to assess whether the
PCN was issued correctly, based on the evidence supplied by both
parties. POPLA cannot direct how a parking operator manages its
internal appeals process or require it to provide evidence
outside the scope of the appeal. If the appellant wishes to
raise a complaint about the operator’s handling of the matter or
requires any additional evidence, they should contact the
parking operator direct.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLA is an independent, single-stage appeals service. I must
determine whether the parking operator has shown, on the balance
of probabilities, that the PCN was issued correctly and that the
terms and conditions of the car park were either accepted and
breached, or otherwise enforceable against the appellant. The
parking operator has provided a copy of the signage displayed at
the site, a site map showing the position of the signs, ANPR
images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the car park,
and PayByPhone/payment records for the date of the event. The
signage states that paid parking is available Monday to Friday
from 17:00 to 08:00, and all day Saturday and Sunday. It sets
out the applicable tariffs, the available payment method, and
explains that failure to comply with the terms and conditions
may result in a £100 PCN being issued. The ANPR images show that
the vehicle entered the car park on 18 April 2026 at 13:37 and
exited at 18:10. This amounts to a total stay of 4 hours and 33
minutes. The parking operator’s payment evidence shows that a
PayByPhone transaction was made at 14:17, covering parking for 3
hours and 42 minutes, at a cost of £5.70. I have considered the
appellant’s comments regarding PoFA. Where a parking operator
seeks to transfer liability from the driver to the registered
keeper, it must comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of
PoFA and the PCN must be issued within 14 days of the alleged
contravention. In this case, having reviewed the PCN and the
parking operator’s evidence, I am satisfied that the parking
operator has provided sufficient evidence to pursue the
appellant as the registered keeper due to no driver details
being supplied. I therefore find that keeper liability has been
established. Therefore I am satisfied that the PCN is PoFA 2012
compliant. I have also considered whether the driver had
sufficient notice of the terms. The parking operator’s evidence
shows that signs were present at the entrance and throughout the
site. The signs clearly described the parking terms, the
requirement to make payment, and the consequence of
non-compliance. I am satisfied that the terms were prominently
brought to the attention of motorists and were capable of
forming a contract. The evidence shows that payment was made
after the vehicle entered the site and that the payment
purchased did not cover the full period the vehicle remained
parked. The total stay was 4 hours and 33 minutes, while the
PayByPhone transaction only covered 3 hours and 42 minutes. On
this basis, the vehicle remained parked beyond the paid-for
period. The appellant has not provided persuasive evidence to
show that a further valid payment was made, that the vehicle was
exempt from the terms, or that the parking operator’s records
are unreliable. While I acknowledge the appellant’s position,
the evidence supplied by the operator demonstrates that the
parking session did not cover the full duration of the stay
Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that
the vehicle is parked in accordance with the advertised terms
and that sufficient payment is made for the time the vehicle
remains on site. In this case, I am satisfied that the parking
operator has shown that the vehicle was parked in breach of
those terms. For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that
the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, this appeal is
refused. As the decision has now been issued for the appellants
appeal, we have reached the end of our process and there is no
opportunity to appeal. POPLA is a one-stage appeal process and
the decision is final meaning its involvement in the appeal has
come to an end
#Post#: 127095--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN - Parked without a valid Pay by Phone
transaction- Horse & Barge, Reading
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 6, 2026, 5:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Riz101 link ---
>
> Hello, how would I proceed from here?
>
--- End Quote ---
Assuming you want to continue to challenge the matter, ignore
the debt collector's letters, and come back when you receive a
Letter of Claim from ECP's solicitors.
#Post#: 127099--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN - Parked without a valid Pay by Phone
transaction- Horse & Barge, Reading
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 7, 2026, 1:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Who was the Assessor?
They completely skip over the relevant POFA appeal points.
#Post#: 127111--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN - Parked without a valid Pay by Phone
transaction- Horse & Barge, Reading
DIR By: Riz101
Date: August 7, 2026, 4:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Lyndsey H.
My AI is disappointed as well. See the remarks below:
This is a disappointing and, frankly, a poorly reasoned
decision. Let me be straight with you about what happened.
What the assessor got wrong
The core of your appeal was that ECP's NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)
— no invitation to the keeper to pay. The assessor did not
engage with this at all. Look at the critical sentence:
"I am satisfied that the parking operator has provided
sufficient evidence to pursue the appellant as the registered
keeper due to no driver details being supplied. I therefore find
that keeper liability has been established."
This is exactly the unlawful inference b789 warned about, now
endorsed by the assessor. They've treated "no driver named" as
the thing that establishes keeper liability — which is
backwards. Keeper liability requires strict PoFA compliance
first; your not naming the driver is only relevant after the
notice is compliant. The assessor never actually checked the
9(2)(e)(i) wording, never addressed the orange rectangle point,
and simply asserted "the PCN is PoFA 2012 compliant" without
analysis.
This is, bluntly, one of the "intellectually malnourished" POPLA
outcomes b789 explicitly predicted. It doesn't mean the argument
was wrong — it means the assessor didn't apply it.
#Post#: 127162--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN - Parked without a valid Pay by Phone
transaction- Horse & Barge, Reading
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 7, 2026, 9:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not bad for AI - I am not normally a fan.
This is classic Lyndsey Howgate and I was 90% certain that she
was going be be revealed as the Assessor in this instance.
Lyndsey Howgate's normal modus operandi (in the instance of a
non POFA complaint appeal) is to ignore (skip over) the specific
appeal points which the appellant puts forward in their
submitted appeal.
Instead of addressing the appellant's appeal points she provides
answers to her own 'imaginary' appeal.
As a result the assessment often contains a large chunk (the
majority) of text which bears no relationship whatsoever to the
appeal which was actually made - in this instance the assessment
contains loads of waffle and is 'padded out' with things which
you never raised.
She deliberately keeps those answer strictly to those areas of
POFA compliance which she knows she can demonstrate.
Notice how she fails to address ANY of the non compliance with
both Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(e)?
In fact, she never even references those appeal points at any
stage in the assessment - it's like you never even raised those
appeal points - this is not by accident but is the recognisable
Lyndsey Howgate 'deflection technique' - put simply, she
recognises that any engagement with those appeal points will
simply lead to a demonstration of non compliance so she is super
careful to side-step those issues.
Similarly, she recognises that clarity in relation to the true
statutory requirements of the Schedule will also lead to a
demonstration of non-compliance so, (as you correctly point out)
she comes up with her own personal paraphrased version of POFA
compliance which is carefully designed to fit in with the
operator's NtK rather than referencing the precise wording of
the statute which she knows the NtK will not meet - another
recognisable 'deflection technique'.
We can come up with a complaint if you like?
#Post#: 127165--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN - Parked without a valid Pay by Phone
transaction- Horse & Barge, Reading
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 7, 2026, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is why I advise against long appeals to parking companies
and to POPLA, because they simply ignore the difficult appeal
points in their replies.
This is increasingly common, perhaps because of Lyndsey Howgate?
It's different for a defence in court, because they will
consider all the points. POPLA isn't a court. So there's a good
basis here for a defence in due course.
The problem is that, unless there's a single overwhelming appeal
point, it's easy to submit multiple appeal points. But a core
appeal point should be made on its own in my opinion, to prevent
POPLA from ignoring it.
But we are where we are - not the end of the world.
#Post#: 127171--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks PCN - Parked without a valid Pay by Phone
transaction- Horse & Barge, Reading
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 7, 2026, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> The problem is that, unless there's a single overwhelming
appeal point, it's easy to submit multiple appeal points. But a
core appeal point should be made on its own in my opinion, to
prevent POPLA from ignoring it.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'll keep this brief so as not to stray too far from the OP's
immediate case, but I'm on the fence about this. I agree with
not lumping in any old weak argument "kitchen sink" style, but
I'm also not sure I'd recommend reducing appeals down to a
single point in a bid to cater to the worst assessors, at the
expense of multiple strong appeal points (where they exist).
This was a short appeal in my view, and although there were
three appeal points, in reality all three were essentially
sub-points of one overarching point. This didn't prevent the
assessor from dodging the salient points.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page