DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 126945--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks Private Land NTK in post received
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: August 5, 2026, 11:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I’m trying to make sure their signage was correctly
applied as mentioned in the earlier template
“Because of the long-standing history of free council
parking, there is a legal expectation for prominent, highly
visible "changed terms" signage at the entrance and throughout
the site to alert historic users. The current signage is
insufficient to alter the established patterns of legitimate
pool visitors, and no adequate warning or consideration period
was provided to the motorist.”
The drivers actual experience was different in reality as
mentioned the phone was unexpectedly stuck on Apple logo making
it completely unusable. However as this is a genuine mitigating
circumstance worth putting forward can anyone advise whether a
soft approach is worth chancing as below.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued in
relation to vehicle xxxxxxx
I would like to explain that I had every intention of paying for
my parking. On arriving at the car park, I attempted to make
payment using my iPhone. Unfortunately, at that moment my phone
suffered an unexpected fault and became stuck on the Apple logo.
It was completely unresponsive, meaning I was unable to unlock
it, use Apple Pay, make calls, or access any apps.
As I did not have my physical bank cards with me, I had no
alternative method of payment available. When I returned to my
vehicle, I tried again, but my phone was still frozen and
unusable.
I appreciate that the fault was with my phone rather than your
payment system. However, I hope you will accept that this was a
genuine and unforeseen technical issue, not an attempt to avoid
paying for parking. Had my phone been functioning normally, I
would have paid the parking charge without hesitation.
I respectfully ask that you exercise your discretion and cancel
this Parking Charge Notice. If cancellation is not possible, I
would be grateful if you would consider accepting payment of the
original parking tariff instead.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my appeal. I hope you
will view these circumstances sympathetically, and I look
forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 126986--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks Private Land NTK in post received
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 6, 2026, 1:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
STOP!
That appeal reveals the driver??
Never reveal the driver.
Your appeal is made as keeper.
#Post#: 127019--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks Private Land NTK in post received
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: August 6, 2026, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Edit message option not showing? Maybe timed out.
Thanks for pointing that out intercity. I got carried away into
the perspective of the driver.
Proceed with this as keeper or previous template better or any
advice please anyone?
07/08/26 marks 14 days.
#Post#: 127134--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks Private Land NTK in post received
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: August 7, 2026, 6:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry intercity125 that dislike button was an accident, meant to
hit the like button. Apologies it won’t let me change it
now.
#Post#: 127193--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks Private Land NTK in post received
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: August 7, 2026, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Euro Car Parks
Re: Notice to Keeper: [NTK NUMBER]
Vehicle Registration: [REGISTRATION NUMBER]
Location: Cardiff International Pool Car Park, Empire Way
Date of Parking Event: 19 July 2026
I am appealing this Notice to Keeper as the registered keeper of
the vehicle.
This appeal concerns the adequacy and prominence of the signage
communicating a significant and relatively recent change to the
longstanding parking arrangements at Cardiff International Pool.
The driver was familiar with Cardiff International Pool and with
the longstanding previous arrangement whereby parking associated
with the facility was free. The subsequent introduction of a
privately managed paid-parking regime therefore represented a
material change to the parking arrangements with which a
returning user of the facility would have been familiar.
After receiving the Notice to Keeper, I made enquiries regarding
the change in parking arrangements. I contacted Cardiff
International Pool and was informed that the car park had been
sold to a private owner around April 2026. This would place the
change only approximately three months before the parking event
on 19 July 2026.
I subsequently revisited the location and obtained photographs
showing the approach to the car park and its entrance from a
driver’s perspective. These photographs were taken after
the parking event and are attached to this appeal to demonstrate
the positioning and prominence of the signage as encountered
when approaching the site.
For the avoidance of doubt, this appeal does not assert that
there was no signage whatsoever at the entrance. The issue is
whether the significant and relatively recent change from the
longstanding free-parking arrangements was brought sufficiently
prominently to the attention of a returning motorist.
The attached photographs show the route towards the car park.
There is no conspicuous advance signage on the approach
specifically alerting motorists that the longstanding parking
arrangements have changed or that new paid-parking terms are now
in operation.
The relevant parking signage becomes apparent at the entrance
itself. Although signage is present there, it is positioned to
the side of the driver’s direction of travel. In
particular, the yellow notice specifically stating “New
parking rules in operation” is comparatively small,
positioned beneath the other signage and does not stand out
prominently to a motorist approaching and negotiating the turn
into the car park.
The fact that a notice stating “New parking rules in
operation” was considered necessary is itself consistent
with there having been a material change to the established
parking arrangements. The question is whether that change was
given sufficient prominence to bring the new terms adequately to
the attention of motorists who were familiar with the previous
arrangements.
The vehicle’s parking position and the pedestrian route
taken are also relevant to the practical visibility of the
entrance signage. As identified in the attached photograph, the
vehicle was parked close to the trees and pedestrian
access/walkway at the edge of the car park. After parking, the
driver left the car park through that pedestrian access rather
than returning towards the vehicle entrance. The driver
subsequently returned to the vehicle by the same pedestrian
route. The driver therefore did not pass the vehicle entrance
signage again on foot after parking.
This appeal is therefore not based simply upon whether Euro Car
Parks can demonstrate that signs physically existed somewhere at
the site. The issue is whether a material and relatively recent
change from longstanding free parking to a privately managed
paid-parking regime was communicated with sufficient prominence
to bring the new terms adequately to the attention of a
returning motorist.
The attached photographs have deliberately been taken from the
approach and driver’s perspective so that the signage can
be considered in its actual context, including the absence of
conspicuous advance warning, the positioning of the entrance
signage, the comparatively small notice concerning the new
parking rules, and the location at which the vehicle was parked.
In those circumstances, I respectfully request that Euro Car
Parks cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
If Euro Car Parks rejects this appeal, please provide a detailed
response addressing the signage and change-of-terms issue raised
above, together with the appropriate POPLA verification code, so
that the registered keeper may refer the matter for independent
consideration.
Yours faithfully
Registered Keeper
Going back to the photos I circled where the vehicle was parked
and driver walked out and returned to the vehicle.
Photo attached:
HTML https://ibb.co/CS9f9mJ
#Post#: 127519--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks Private Land NTK in post received
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: August 11, 2026, 11:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have a response from ECP today pdf link attached below.
HTML https://ibb.co/Fk1z8T9n
My initial appeal pdf link below.
HTML https://ibb.co/sJHkjp1Y
What are your thoughts please?
#Post#: 127574--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks Private Land NTK in post received
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 12, 2026, 1:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is EXACTLY the type of appeal response which the CMA are
highlighting in their open letter.
You should submit your situation to the CMA in order to add the
pile of evidence which they have against ECP.
#Post#: 127606--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks Private Land NTK in post received
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: August 12, 2026, 6:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Didn’t think of contacting CMA. I’ll get onto them now regarding
this.
Thanks intercity125 that’s a good call worth looking into to.
#Post#: 127634--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks Private Land NTK in post received
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 12, 2026, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The CMA won't get this cancelled and you'll still need to go
through the POPLA process but we can highlight the fact that, as
per the CMA open letter, ECP are not assessing appeals in a
professional or credible manner.
The notice is not POFA complaint either so keeper liability
cannot occur.
#Post#: 127686--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks Private Land NTK in post received
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: August 12, 2026, 6:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Proposed POPLA Appeal – for review before submission
Thanks InterCity125.
I have looked further into the CMA point. I understand that the
CMA will not intervene to cancel an individual PCN and that I
still need to follow the normal POPLA process. I also appreciate
the point about referring to the current CMA investigation when
addressing the quality of ECP’s appeal consideration, rather
than treating the CMA investigation itself as a ground for
cancellation.
More importantly, you have mentioned that the Notice to Keeper
is not POFA compliant and therefore keeper liability cannot
arise.
Before I submit anything to POPLA, I would appreciate
confirmation of the precise POFA defect you have identified so
that I can plead that accurately.
Subject to that point being clarified, below is essentially the
full argument I currently intend to put to POPLA. I would
appreciate anyone’s views on anything that should be added,
removed or corrected.
POPLA APPEAL
I appeal this Parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper.
I ask that the appeal be allowed on the following grounds:
1. Euro Car Parks has not established keeper liability under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
2. Euro Car Parks has not demonstrated compliance with section
3.4 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice
concerning a material change to the previous parking
arrangements.
3. The changed parking arrangements were not communicated with
sufficient prominence when viewed from the actual driver’s
approach.
4. Euro Car Parks has not demonstrated the necessary landowner
authority.
5. Euro Car Parks’ rejection did not substantively address the
principal grounds and evidence contained in the original appeal.
1. No keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012
The appeal is brought by the registered keeper.
The driver has not been identified.
Euro Car Parks expressly states in its rejection that it seeks
to rely upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
to recover the parking charge from the keeper.
Accordingly, Euro Car Parks must demonstrate strict compliance
with the applicable requirements of Schedule 4 before liability
can be transferred from an unidentified driver to the keeper.
[INSERT PRECISE POFA DEFECT IDENTIFIED ON THE NOTICE TO KEEPER.]
In the absence of compliance with the mandatory requirements of
Schedule 4, liability cannot be transferred to the registered
keeper.
I therefore ask POPLA to allow the appeal on this ground alone.
2. Material change – section 3.4 of the Private Parking Sector
Single Code of Practice
Euro Car Parks identifies itself as a BPA Approved Operator on
its correspondence.
Section 3.4 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice deals specifically with material changes to
pre-existing parking terms.
It provides that where there is a material change to
pre-existing terms and conditions which would not be immediately
apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has
been open for public parking, the operator must place additional
temporary notices at the site entrance for a period of not less
than four months from the date of the change, making clear that
new terms and conditions/charges apply, so that regular visitors
familiar with the previous terms do not inadvertently incur
parking charges.
The accompanying guidance specifically identifies the
introduction of parking enforcement where none previously
applied as an example of a material change.
This provision is particularly relevant to this site.
The parking associated with Cardiff International Pool had
historically been free and the driver was familiar with those
longstanding arrangements.
Following receipt of the Notice to Keeper, enquiries were made
with Cardiff International Pool concerning the unexpected
change. The pool advised that the car park had been sold to a
private owner around April 2026.
The parking event occurred on 19 July 2026.
On the information presently available, the parking event
therefore occurred approximately three months after the reported
change and appears to fall within the minimum four-month period
specified by section 3.4.
Euro Car Parks is therefore put to strict proof of:
1. The precise date upon which the new parking regime commenced.
2. The date upon which the additional temporary notices required
by section 3.4 were installed.
3. Contemporaneous dated photographs demonstrating exactly what
additional material-change notices were present on the date of
the parking event.
4. The location, size and positioning of those additional
notices.
5. A contemporaneous site/signage plan showing the relevant
notices.
6. Evidence demonstrating that the additional notices remained
in place for the minimum four-month period required by section
3.4.
3. Inadequate prominence of the material-change notice
I do not contend that there was no signage whatsoever at the
entrance.
There is ordinary Euro Car Parks entrance signage and beneath
that signage is a comparatively small yellow panel stating:
“New parking rules in operation.”
This appears to be the additional notice upon which Euro Car
Parks may seek to rely for the purposes of section 3.4.
The existence of a notice, however, does not by itself determine
whether the material change was adequately communicated when
considered in its actual setting.
Photographic evidence is provided showing the approach to the
car park sequentially from a driver’s perspective.
There is no conspicuous advance changed-terms notification on
the approach.
The vehicle approaches the nearby roundabout, takes the relevant
exit and, within a short distance, reaches the turn into the car
park.
At the entrance, the Euro Car Parks signage is positioned to the
side of the direction of travel. The yellow “New parking rules
in operation” panel is positioned beneath the ordinary entrance
signage and is considerably less prominent.
The photographs demonstrate the signage as it would actually be
encountered by an approaching motorist, rather than through
close-up photographs taken directly in front of individual
signs.
This distinction is particularly important in the context of
section 3.4, whose purpose is specifically to prevent regular
visitors familiar with previous parking arrangements from
inadvertently incurring parking charges following a material
change.
The Code also requires signage to be visible, legible and
unambiguous to drivers and requires the size and positioning of
entrance signage to take account of the expected speed and
direction of vehicles approaching the entrance.
The issue is therefore not whether Euro Car Parks can produce a
close-up photograph demonstrating that words existed on a sign.
The issue is whether the material change was communicated with
sufficient prominence to an approaching motorist, particularly
one familiar with the previous longstanding free-parking
arrangements.
4. The driver’s route after parking
The location at which the vehicle was parked is also relevant
when considering whether the changed parking arrangements were
subsequently brought to the driver’s attention.
The vehicle was parked close to the trees and pedestrian
access/walkway at the edge of the car park, as demonstrated in
the photographic evidence.
After parking, the driver left through that pedestrian access
rather than walking back towards or through the vehicle
entrance.
The driver subsequently returned to the vehicle using the same
pedestrian route.
The driver therefore did not subsequently pass the vehicle
entrance signage on foot.
This is relevant to the practical opportunity available for the
recently changed parking arrangements to be brought to the
driver’s attention.
5. Landowner authority
Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof that it possessed the
necessary written landowner authority to operate this site and
issue parking charges on the date of the parking event.
This is particularly relevant given the relatively recent
reported change in ownership/management of the car park.
I request that Euro Car Parks demonstrate that its authority
covered:
* the relevant land and its boundaries;
* the period including the date of this parking event;
* the applicable parking terms and tariff; and
* authority to issue and pursue parking charges.
A generic witness statement or evidence that does not establish
the extent and duration of the operator’s authority should not
be treated as sufficient evidence of authority for this
particular site and parking event.
6. Euro Car Parks did not substantively address the original
appeal
The original appeal expressly raised the recent change in
parking arrangements and the prominence and adequacy of the
signage.
Euro Car Parks’ rejection does not substantively determine those
issues.
Instead, the rejection states that the site is operated using
ANPR, that it is a Pay by Mobile car park, that charges apply 24
hours a day and that no Pay by Mobile transaction could be
identified for the vehicle.
Those matters establish Euro Car Parks’ position that no payment
was recorded.
They do not establish that the newly introduced parking terms
were adequately communicated following a material change.
Nor does the rejection explain:
* when the new parking regime commenced;
* whether the parking event occurred within the section 3.4
four-month period;
* when the additional temporary notices were installed;
* what additional material-change notices were in place on the
date of the event; or
* how Euro Car Parks considers those notices complied with
section 3.4.
The original appeal therefore does not appear to have received a
substantive response to its central ground.
Conclusion
This appeal is not based simply upon an assertion that the
driver did not notice a parking sign.
There are separate substantive issues for POPLA to determine.
First, Euro Car Parks seeks to pursue the registered keeper
under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If its
Notice to Keeper does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of
Schedule 4, keeper liability does not arise.
Second, this site underwent a relatively recent and material
change from longstanding free parking to privately controlled
paid parking.
Section 3.4 specifically addresses such circumstances and
requires additional temporary entrance notices for at least four
months so that regular visitors familiar with previous
arrangements do not inadvertently incur parking charges.
The parking event occurred approximately three months after the
reported change.
The photographic evidence demonstrates the actual approach to
the site, the absence of conspicuous advance changed-terms
notification and the limited prominence of the yellow “New
parking rules in operation” notice when viewed in its actual
context.
Euro Car Parks should therefore be required to demonstrate both
compliance with Schedule 4 for keeper liability and compliance
with the applicable Code requirements concerning the material
change.
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the appeal be
allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.
That is the POPLA appeal I am presently considering.
The obvious outstanding issue is completing Ground 1 with the
exact POFA defect InterCity125 has identified.
I’d appreciate any comments or corrections before I decide
whether to proceed to POPLA.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page