DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 92619--------------------------------------------------
ECP 14mins stay no valid PBP session purchased
DIR By: mickR
Date: October 2, 2025, 2:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Driver stopped asap to attend to 4 month old baby passenger they
thought it would be quick stop so didnt look for parking
conditions. on site for 14 mins.
location, The Yeoman, West Byfleet.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/y1xsz1vP8SYQG5K89
NTK front
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/zPcZn5xQN9a8xw8s9
NTK back
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/aBChmWwFaPuH8shq5
Delivered yesterday 1st oct
is the NTK fully compliant?
#Post#: 92620--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP 14mins stay no valid PBP
DIR By: jfollows
Date: October 2, 2025, 2:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PBP?
#Post#: 92621--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP 14mins stay no valid PBP
DIR By: mickR
Date: October 2, 2025, 2:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
pay by phone
#Post#: 92696--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP 14mins stay no valid PBP session purchased
DIR By: b789
Date: October 3, 2025, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
NtK is still not compliant with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as there is no
invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge, irrespective of
whether they were the driver or not.
Usual non-PoFA appeal followed by POPLA and if unsuccessful,
litigation through DCB Legal and defended with our non-CPR 16.4
compliance defence followed by eventual discontinuation.
#Post#: 92712--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP 14mins stay no valid PBP session purchased
DIR By: mickR
Date: October 3, 2025, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member]
thanks for your perusal
I missed the invitation bit.
for some odd reason the search panel didn't show the required
results but I thinknthis is the appropriate response.
please correct me if im wrong
--- Quote ---
> 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. NCP 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.
NCP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 92724--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP 14mins stay no valid PBP session purchased
DIR By: mickR
Date: October 3, 2025, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
👍
#Post#: 96955--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP 14mins stay no valid PBP session purchased
DIR By: mickR
Date: November 5, 2025, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected, rejection recived. Popla code issued.
rejection letter
HTML https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:e88949de-fe20-4194-bab1-ed460a3642ab
( [member=26]b789[/member] which would be correct Popla appeal?
cheers.)
#Post#: 96972--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP 14mins stay no valid PBP session purchased
DIR By: b789
Date: November 5, 2025, 2:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A search of the forum will bring up many recent POPLA appeals
you can use to compile your own. Just show us before you send it
so we can advise on any edits that may be necessary. You have 33
days for the appeal rejection date to actually submit your POPLA
appeal, so no rush.
#Post#: 96985--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP 14mins stay no valid PBP session purchased
DIR By: mickR
Date: November 5, 2025, 3:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member]
for some very odd reason each time I search for popla appeal I
get differing results, sometimes multiple and sometimes just 1
or 2. I have yet to get a search result of a thread that
includes a sample of a popla appeal. very strange, no idea why.
please correct me if im wrong but there appears one line of
appeal in,
Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) failure to invite.
#Post#: 100562--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP 14mins stay no valid PBP session purchased
DIR By: mickR
Date: December 1, 2025, 11:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ive let this slip a bit due to having an operation but its close
to deadline now. appreciate a look over this Popla appeal and
advise. think it's one of yours @b789
had to do this on my mobile so apologies if it's lost some
formatting.
FAO Poplar Assessor
Polpla Code ................
Parking Operator: Euro Car Parks
Parking charge No. .....
Date of Charge....
Appellant........
Address......
Vehicle registration......
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle.
I am appealing this parking charge issued by ECP on the grounds
that they have failed to fully comply with Pofa. Accordingly
they cannot hold me the keeper, liable for this Charge.
Failure to comply.
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or
nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the
keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include
certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)…
(e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a
statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required
element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such
thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2).
a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required
limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the
keeper. End of.
Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i).
That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay
the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the
invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to
tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if
the creditor wants keeper liability.
What this NtK actually does, is talk only to “the driver” when
demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The
demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g.
language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days”
/ “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence
that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The
word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral
data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any
invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i)
forbids.
For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs:
(i) an invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation
to either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice
to the driver.
Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the 9(2)(e)(i)
keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA compliance. The
statute makes keeper liability contingent on strict satisfaction
of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice invites only “the
driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is not a PoFA notice.
The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from an
unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Only the driver
could ever be liable; the driver is not identified. The keeper
is not liable in law.
This charge must therefore be cancelled.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page