DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 126718--------------------------------------------------
Euro Parking Services lease vehicle alleged "left the
premises" contravention
DIR By: tigerjohn
Date: August 3, 2026, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate some advice regarding a Euro Parking Services
parking charge that has now reached the "Final Demand Before
Court Action" stage.
Private parking charge issued in April 2026.
Vehicle is leased through a fleet company.
The original notice was sent to the leasing company, which
transferred liability to me as hirer.
The first correspondence I personally received was a reminder
notice rather than a fresh PCN addressed to the hirer.
The alleged contravention was "Parking for patrons whilst on the
premises only".
The vehicle was parked for only 8 minutes and 14 seconds.
Euro Parking claims that the driver "walked off site".
Appeal history, due to the leasing company transferring
liability, it was outside the "discounted" period.
I appealed without identifying the driver.
Euro Parking rejected the appeal and stated that the driver had
been observed leaving the site.
They refused to provide details of the landowner authority,
saying that it was not public information.
The rejection letter also states that motorists must remain on
the premises while parked and leave immediately after completing
their purchase.
Site layout:
The parking spaces are directly adjacent to a bakery and outdoor
seating area.
There are no obvious physical boundaries, fences or markings
showing where the premises begin or end.
The signage does not appear to define the site boundaries.
It is unclear whether the bakery and parking area are under the
same ownership.
The PCN only shows CCTV images of the vehicle entering and
leaving.
The operator alleges that CCTV/video shows the driver leaving
the premises.
The driver believed they were using parking associated with the
nearby bakery.
The parking spaces are directly adjacent to a bakery and outdoor
seating area, with no obvious physical boundary, fencing or
markings separating the different businesses.
The sign prominently advertises "Pay to park with your phone"
and "£1 per hour" weekend parking, which gives the impression
that the car park is open to the public.
The weekday restriction ("Monday to Friday parking is restricted
to authorized staff only") appears in much smaller text and is
far less prominent.
The sign does not clearly explain which businesses are covered
by the parking restrictions or whether customers of the adjacent
bakery are prohibited from parking there.
The sign refers to remaining "on the premises", but does not
define where the premises begin or end.
There is no obvious indication that walking into the neighboring
bakery would be considered "leaving the premises".
At the time, the driver genuinely believed that the parking
spaces were connected to the nearby bakery because of the layout
and the wording of the sign.
Could a reasonable motorist be expected to understand from this
sign that visiting the bakery would amount to leaving the
premises, given the layout and prominence of the weekend public
parking information?
I have now received a "Final Demand Before Court Action"
demanding £160.
I have not admitted to being the driver.
For a hire vehicle, were the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA
complied with?
Should a fresh notice have been served on the hirer?
Must the operator prove exactly where the driver went and where
the site boundary is?
Is the signage sufficient if the boundaries are unclear?
What should my response to the pre-action letter contain?
[img width=947
height=2048]
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/dJs1rgVv/Parkingarea.jpg?dl=1[/img]
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/XvTj9H7p/parkingsign.jpg
#Post#: 126721--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services lease vehicle alleged "left
the premises" contravention
DIR By: RichardW
Date: August 3, 2026, 12:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever had a notice in your name?
Post up the latest letter you have received, sounds like it's
might just be a tree shaking exercise.
Where on the sign does it say you must stay on site?!?
#Post#: 126724--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services lease vehicle alleged "left
the premises" contravention
DIR By: tigerjohn
Date: August 3, 2026, 12:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have not received any notice in my name.
I only received a Reminder Notice in my name, and than now Final
Demand before court action.
When the leasing company contacted me, I did make an appeal, but
it was declined. I did this based on the leasing company
forwarding me the documents sent to them. They did expect that a
PCN would be reissued to me after transfer of liability, but
never got any reissued.
This was the response to my appeal. I stopped communication
after this. I am considering if I should reply to this letter or
not.
Here is a copy of appeal response:
"Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above
Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
After reviewing the details of your appeal and the evidence held
on file, we must advise that your appeal
has been unsuccessful.
As evidence by the PCN you were observed walking off site while
your vehicle parked there.
It is the motorists responsibility to remain within the
premises while their vehicle is parked. Once they
have completed their visit or purchase, they must leave the site
immediately. Vehicles may not be left on
the premises while the driver/passenger goes elsewhere.
Note, there is a consideration period but if the driver has left
the vehicle unattended and has gone
elsewhere then they are no longer considering the terms and
conditions of parking enforcement on the
premises.
The Landowner authority is not public information and this does
not have to be disclosed. The IAS has
access to this should the appeal go to this stage.
Details of how to submit an appeal can be found at:
www.theias.org
As the discounted settlement period has lapsed, you are now
required to pay £100.
We are satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was issued
correctly and that sufficient attention was
brought to the driver with regards to the terms and conditions
enforced. In light of the aforementioned,
your appeal is declined.
If you wish to appeal this decision further, you may refer your
case to the Independent Appeals Service
(IAS), which is operated by the International Parking Community
(IPC)."
[img]
HTML https://postimg.cc/t1QD5Q7K[/img]https://i.postimg.cc/W4tKssV1/PCN.jpg
#Post#: 126741--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services lease vehicle alleged "left
the premises" contravention
DIR By: tigerjohn
Date: August 3, 2026, 4:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RichardW link ---
>
> Have you ever had a notice in your name?
>
> Post up the latest letter you have received, sounds like it's
might just be a tree shaking exercise.
>
> Where on the sign does it say you must stay on site?!?
>
--- End Quote ---
This is the letter I received today. It is the second letter i
have received so far in this process.
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/ZqnYBwX5/Final-demand-letter1.jpg
#Post#: 126744--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services lease vehicle alleged "left
the premises" contravention
DIR By: RichardW
Date: August 3, 2026, 4:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That's not an actual letter of claim - that will come from
Gladstones, and give 30 days to pay.
What exactly did you say in your appeal? Without a compliant
notice to hirer (which they never send) there is no route to
hirer liability - but, and it's a big but, if you let the cat
out of the bag about the driver's ID (even accidentally by
saying I parked or similar) then you have lost this.
#Post#: 126752--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services lease vehicle alleged "left
the premises" contravention
DIR By: tigerjohn
Date: August 3, 2026, 5:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Any communication made, has been that I am hirer / keeper.
Driver has not been identified by me.
This is the appeal I made:
"I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the hirer of the
vehicle.
The vehicle remained on site for only a very brief period while
the driver visited the immediately adjacent bakery premises.
From the perspective of a reasonable visitor, the premises and
surrounding customer areas appear physically connected and no
clear site boundary was identifiable.
The signage relied upon does not prominently or clearly
communicate that customers of the adjacent bakery are prohibited
from parking, nor does it define any visible boundary between
the businesses. The wording is vague and insufficiently clear
for a driver entering the site for a short customer visit.
The duration involved was approximately 8 minutes only, entirely
consistent with a brief genuine customer visit and/or a
reasonable consideration period while assessing the premises and
signage.
The photographic evidence supplied does not demonstrate any
clearly marked site boundary being crossed, nor does it
establish that the driver intentionally breached any clearly
communicated parking restriction.
In addition, this vehicle is supplied through a lease/hire
arrangement via XXXXLtd. Please therefore provide strict proof
that all requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 relating to hire/lease vehicles have been
fully complied with, including all mandatory documents and
prescribed timelines required to transfer liability to the
hirer.
Unless full compliance with POFA Schedule 4 has been achieved,
liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the hirer.
In light of:
the unclear and ambiguous site layout,
the absence of any clearly defined boundary,
the unclear signage wording,
the extremely short duration,
the genuine customer nature of the visit,
and the potential non-compliance with POFA requirements for hire
vehicles,
I request that this Parking Charge Notice is cancelled.
Should you reject this appeal, please provide:
full evidence of POFA Schedule 4 compliance for hire vehicles,
copies of all documents served and dates issued,
a full site map identifying the exact enforced boundary,
evidence showing how that boundary is clearly communicated to
motorists,
photographs showing all signage relied upon,
and evidence of landowner authority.
Yours faithfully
#Post#: 126762--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services lease vehicle alleged "left
the premises" contravention
DIR By: RichardW
Date: August 4, 2026, 1:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's a solid appeal - I would just re-send it in response to
the letter, starting out with that you deny liability, and
expanding that since you never received the NTH with the
associated docs as required they have failed to establish hirer
liability.
#Post#: 126803--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services lease vehicle alleged "left
the premises" contravention
DIR By: tigerjohn
Date: August 4, 2026, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your response.
The only documents I have personally received from Euro Parking
are the reminder notice, the appeal rejection and the final
demand letter. I have never received a copy of the hire
agreement or the liability statement from the leasing company.
Does that mean hirer liability has not been established under
Schedule 4?
#Post#: 126804--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services lease vehicle alleged "left
the premises" contravention
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 4, 2026, 9:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tigerjohn link ---
>
> Does that mean hirer liability has not been established under
Schedule 4?
>
--- End Quote ---
Basically, yes.
#Post#: 126806--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services lease vehicle alleged "left
the premises" contravention
DIR By: tigerjohn
Date: August 4, 2026, 9:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again, one more thing.
If hirer liability has not been established, should my response
to the final demand focus primarily on the POFA failure, or
should I continue to argue the signage and boundary issues as
secondary points?
After replying to this final demand letter what should I expect
them to be doing?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page