URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 117802--------------------------------------------------
       Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
   DIR By: StfuECP
       Date: May 5, 2026, 6:23 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: jfollows link ---
       >
       > You have “bit PoFA compliant”, do you mean “not PoFA
       compliant”?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Yes
       #Post#: 118119--------------------------------------------------
       Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
   DIR By: StfuECP
       Date: May 8, 2026, 9:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi everyone,
       Could someone please give me any feedback on my defence?
       Thanks
       #Post#: 118981--------------------------------------------------
       Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
   DIR By: StfuECP
       Date: May 17, 2026, 2:07 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi,
       Apologiesnfor bumping this again, but having not had any advice
       on the defence I had written I've submitted an AOS to give me
       more time to get the defence checked.
       Is anyone able to have a look over it please? It's just a few
       replies back. Thanks.
       #Post#: 119556--------------------------------------------------
       Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
   DIR By: StfuECP
       Date: May 23, 2026, 4:21 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Please could someone cast their eye over the following defence
       before I submit it online? TIA.
       The driver went to view a flat. The landlord told them to park
       behind building A and said that they were covered by a residents
       permit. The driver saw the ECP sign but due to how illegible it
       was and holding the honestly held belief that they were covered
       by a residents permit parked up, walked round to the flat and
       when they got no answer called the landlord. Turned out the
       landlord had given the driver the wrong address. He should have
       sent the driver to building B which is next door and has it's
       own car park. The driver left the car park after 14 minutes.
       The communications between the landlord and driver were by phone
       and the landlord is no longer contactable.
       An appeal was submitted to the original NtK as follows:
       I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
       charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
       will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
       client landowner.
       As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
       the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
       of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
       substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
       admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
       can be drawn. ECP has relied on contract law allegations of
       breach against the driver only.
       The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
       been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
       of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
       ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
       complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
       PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) has not been complied with. The NtK
       did not specifically invite the Keeper to pay the charge.
       In big bold writing on the front of the NtK it says that payment
       is to be made within 28 days of issue. Section 8.1.2(e) of the
       PPSCoP says that the recipient of a notice has 28 days from the
       date of receipt, not date of issue.
       The ECP sign in the car park mentioned is bit PoFA compliant
       with paragraph 2(2) or 2(3) as they do not adequately bring the
       charge to the attention of the driver (Ref Beavis case).
       I have asked ECP to provide proof that they have a valid
       contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue
       PCNs at the location. They have failed to do so.
       #Post#: 119616--------------------------------------------------
       Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
   DIR By: InterCity125
       Date: May 24, 2026, 1:47 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       ECP NtKs fail to comply with paragraph 9(2)(e) full stop - I
       wouldn't specifically mention 9(2)(e)(i) - just say 9(2)(e).
       #Post#: 119618--------------------------------------------------
       Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
   DIR By: jfollows
       Date: May 24, 2026, 2:05 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You’ve still got “bit PoFA compliant”
       #Post#: 119666--------------------------------------------------
       Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
   DIR By: StfuECP
       Date: May 24, 2026, 5:05 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
       >
       > ECP NtKs fail to comply with paragraph 9(2)(e) full stop - I
       wouldn't specifically mention 9(2)(e)(i) - just say 9(2)(e).
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       That's really helpful, thanks. Is there anything else you'd
       change? Or am I overthinking this? Are they going to give up as
       soon as they receive any reaosnabt defence?
       #Post#: 119667--------------------------------------------------
       Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
   DIR By: StfuECP
       Date: May 24, 2026, 5:06 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: jfollows link ---
       >
       > You’ve still got “bit PoFA compliant”
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Appreciate it, but I've already amended that on my draft copy
       offline. I reposted the original defence from my previous post
       because I was hoping for a bit more in-depth advice beyond spell
       checking. But perhaps my defence is already fine! Thanks.
       #Post#: 119672--------------------------------------------------
       Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
   DIR By: InterCity125
       Date: May 25, 2026, 1:41 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I would start with the non compliant PoFA element since this
       immediately disqualifies the claim.
       Something along the lines of;
       That I am the named defendant and I deny any liability in this
       matter.
       That the vehicle driver is not known to the Claimant and there
       is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver.
       That the Claimant has provided no evidence as to who the driver
       was.
       That the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not comply with
       Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)(PoFA) and as such liability
       cannot be transferred myself.
       That, in particular, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not
       meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) - the
       mandatory wording and two limbed legal choice required by the
       paragraph is not present on the Claimant's NtK and, as such,
       total compliance is not achieved.
       That this means that there is no legal route to me being liable
       for the alleged debt.
       #Post#: 119676--------------------------------------------------
       Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
   DIR By: StfuECP
       Date: May 25, 2026, 2:56 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
       >
       > I would start with the non compliant PoFA element since this
       immediately disqualifies the claim.
       >
       > Something along the lines of;
       >
       >
       >
       > That I am the named defendant and I deny any liability in this
       matter.
       >
       > That the vehicle driver is not known to the Claimant and there
       is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver.
       >
       > That the Claimant has provided no evidence as to who the
       driver was.
       >
       > That the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not comply with
       Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)(PoFA) and as such liability
       cannot be transferred myself.
       >
       > That, in particular, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not
       meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) - the
       mandatory wording and two limbed legal choice required by the
       paragraph is not present on the Claimant's NtK and, as such,
       total compliance is not achieved.
       >
       > That this means that there is no legal route to me being
       liable for the alleged debt.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       That's great, thanks.
       So would you remove the part where I give an explanation as to
       what actually happened on the day with regards to the driver?
       And then just go on to highlight my original reply to ECP which
       covers the other matters?
       *****************************************************
       Page 4 of 6
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page