DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95896--------------------------------------------------
PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: October 28, 2025, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all
We've just received a PCN from Euro Car Parks for parking in a
pub car park without a ticket. I knew that a ticket had been
bought but when it was retrieved from the car I discovered it
only had a partial registration plate on it. This must have been
entered incorrectly either by human or machine failure.
I have attached the PCN and the parking ticket itself.
I have not appealed yet. Would that count against me if it goes
to court?
Here are links to both sides of the PCN and both sides of the
parking ticket.
PCN p1:
HTML https://ibb.co/MDjGxgqv
PCN p2:
HTML https://ibb.co/qMyDSMHX
Ticket front:
HTML https://ibb.co/SDhLRGqD
Ticket back:
HTML https://ibb.co/DPdgjP5z
Thanks for any advice.
Bob
#Post#: 95929--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: b789
Date: October 28, 2025, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is a common failure with many P&D machines that issue a
physical ticket. However, the unregulated parking operator will
not give a damn and will gleefully issue a PCN as it is easy
money for them, especially f their victim is low-hanging fruit
on the gullible tree and likely to pay up out of ignorance and
fear.
I can tell that if you follow the advice we give here, you will
not be paying a penny to ECP. They are easily defeated but it is
a protracted process that will go all the way to a county court
claim, issued through DCB Legal. I can tell you with greater
than 99.9% certainty that any claim issued though DCB Legal that
is defended, and we provide the defence, will either be struck
out or discontinued.
To begin with, appeal to ECP with the following:
--- Quote ---
> I am the Keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your parking
charge. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will
be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner. I am under no legal obligation to identify the
driver to an unregulated private parking firm.
>
> A valid pay-to-park session was purchased by the driver. Your
machine recorded only the last three characters of the VRM,
showing “OTA” on the receipt, whereas the full VRM is “J60OTA”.
This is not a “gross keying error” by the driver but a failure
of your equipment to record the full VRM. You could have very
easily verify the payment by cross-checking your payment logs
for an unreconciled transaction against “OTA” at the material
time.
>
> 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. In particular, it fails
paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) because it does not include the required
invitation for the keeper to pay 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.
--- End Quote ---
If/when that is rejected, come back for a POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 95942--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: October 28, 2025, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for this.
The appeal form does not have space for for the full text that
you have provided. It appears to be limited to just under 800
characters including spaces.
I can attach the full text as a PDF or I can send a hard copy by
post (or both). Which do you suggest.
Should I attach the scan on my parking ticket?
Thanks,
Bob
#Post#: 95946--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: b789
Date: October 28, 2025, 12:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So attach it as a PDF. I don't understand the problem? Just get
it submitted!
#Post#: 95949--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: October 28, 2025, 12:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for confirming. The appeal is submitted and will be
processed within 28 days.
Bob
#Post#: 99437--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: November 23, 2025, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys
It won't surprise you to heat that my appeal was rejected. I
received the rejection as an email with a PDF attachment. The
email address was a noreply address.
Below is the text from the PDF:
What do you recommend as my next move please? I really
appreciate your help.
===================
Date: 21/11/2025
Our Ref: [REMOVED MY MOD]
Unique POPLA Verification Code: [REMOVED MY MOD]
Dear ************ (ON BEHALF OF THE DRIVER),
Thank you for your letter of appeal. The details of the Parking
Charge Notice are as follows:
Parking Charge Notice Number: [REMOVED MY MOD] Date of Issue:
13/10/2025
Vehicle Registration Mark: FJ60OTA Time of Issue: 17:53:23
The Site: JDW - The Dominie Cross - Retford
Breach of Terms and Conditions:
No valid pay and display/permit was
purchased
Having carefully considered the supporting evidence provided by
you, Euro Car Parks (ECP) have
decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
• The Site is operated by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition
(ANPR) system and patrolled
by ECP employees.
• When purchasing a pay and display ticket or mobile payment
session, payment is required for
the full duration of your stay and the full and correct vehicle
registration mark. Signage at the
site clearly details the terms and conditions that you must
adhere to.
• Your appeal states that you purchased a pay and display ticket
or mobile payment session,
however, after checking the providers mobile payment and/or pay
and display machine audit
reports for your stay, there are no transactions for the vehicle
registration mark which would
suggest there has been a “major keying error” when purchasing a
pay and display
ticket/mobile payment session.
• Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was
driving the vehicle, it is the
registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name
and address within 28 days
beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full
amount remains unpaid, under
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’),
Euro Car Parks have the right
subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at
the time it was parked so much
of that amount which remains unpaid.
ECP can confirm the parking charge notice has been issued
correctly and the £20.00 administration
fee is now due as per the British Parking Association Code of
Practice. Failure to pay the £20.00
administration fee within 14 days from the date of this letter
the parking charge notice amount will
revert back to the original amount due when the appeal was
logged.
Oct 13, 2025 16:46:51 Oct 13, 2025 17:47:02 327102 JDW - The
Dominie Cross - Retford JDC02B Up To 2 Hours OTA £2.00
C1 MB
AR/DB/v.001
Once the payment of the £20.00 administration fee has been
received within 14 days from the date of
this letter, the parking charge notice will be closed and
considered settled.
Payment of the £20.00 is now due. Please use one of the
following options below to make
payment:
1. Online: By visiting
HTML https://www.eurocarparks.com/pay-a-parking-charge/
2. Phone: Use the automated telephone service 0203 553 4559.
3. Post: Make your cheque payable to Euro Car Parks Limited
(include a £2.50 handling charge
for cheque processing) and post to Euro Car Parks Ltd, 30 Dorset
Square, London, NW1
6QJ, quoting the PCN number on the reverse of the cheque.
The above amount is now due and the parking charge notice will
be held for 14 days from the date of
this letter to allow time to make payment.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
You can make an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service, POPLA
(Parking on Private Land
Appeals) using the unique POPLA Reference code provided above.
Please note, should you decide
to appeal to POPLA, or if you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is
subsequently rejected, the option
to pay the £20.00 administration fee/discounted amount will no
longer be available and the Full
Amount of the PCN will be due.
Please note - if the parking charge notice was issued in
Scotland and or Northern Ireland, only “The
Driver” can appeal to POPLA.
If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit the
website, www.popla.co.uk where further
details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the
relevant forms) can be found. If the
driver is unable to access the website, please use the contact
us page at
HTML https://www.popla.co.uk/contact.
Please ensure that the POPLA
Reference Number as noted above is
quoted on all correspondence to POPLA. You have 28 days from the
date of this letter to submit an
appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA, the parking charge
notice will be placed on hold.
Appeals may not be accepted if payment is made against the
Parking Charge Notice, including any
appeals logged via POPLA.
If you choose to ignore this letter, we will seek to recover the
outstanding amount owed to us through
the debt recovery process and procedure, this may lead to court
action against you.
By law, we are also required to inform you that the Ombudsman
Services (www.ombudsman-
services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service
that would be able to assist with your appeal. Please note, we
have not chosen to participate in their dispute resolution
service and as such,
should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as
detailed above.
Yours sincerely
PCN Coordinator
Parking Charge Notice Department
#Post#: 99465--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: b789
Date: November 23, 2025, 11:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You may want to redact the POPLA code and PCN number as anyone
with malicious intent can now log in and submit a nursery rhyme
or anything for your POPLA appeal.
The appeal rejection is exactly as expected. You can now submit
a POPLA appeal. Just search the forum for any recent POPLA
appeals and put one together for yourself.
Before you submit anything, show it to us here and we will
advise on any changes it may need. You already have the first
two “hooks” for the appeal in the initial appeal… no Keeper
liability and a payment that can be reconciled. Add in their
woeful signage and put them to strict proof of standing to
operate and issue PCNs in their own name.
#Post#: 100869--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: December 3, 2025, 8:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. I have found an example of an ECN POPLA appeal and
adapted it using the hooks that you had provided. I include it
below. Will it suffice?
Thanks again for your help and guidance.
----------
POPLA Appeal
Verification Code: xxxx
Parking Charge Ref: xxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxx
Operator: Euro Car Parks
Appellant: The Keeper
I am the Keeper of the vehicle and I submit this appeal on the
following grounds:
1. Valid Pay to Park Purchased - Equipment failed to record to
full VRM
2. No Driver Liability – No Admission of Driving; Operator
Attempting to Hold an Unidentified Party Liable
3. The signage fails to comply with the requirements of PoFA
2012 Schedule 4 Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii).
4. The operator is put to strict proof that its signage complies
with the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024).
5. The operator is put to strict proof that it holds a valid and
contemporaneous contract with the landowner authorising the
issuing of PCNs in its own name.
No evidence has been provided as to the identity of the driver,
and no liability can transfer to the Hirer in the absence of
PoFA compliance.
1. A valid pay-to-park session was purchased by the driver of
the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.. The
machine in the car park managed by Euro Car Parks recorded only
the last three characters of the VRM, showing “OTA” on the
receipt, whereas the full VRM is “J60OTA”. This is not a “gross
keying error” by the driver but a failure of the equipment to
record the full VRM. Euro Car Parks could have very easily
verified the payment by cross-checking their payment logs for an
unreconciled transaction against “OTA” at the material time.
2. No Driver Liability – No Admission of Driving; Operator
Attempting to Hold the Wrong Party Liable
The Keeper has made no admission as to the identity of the
driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.
No such admission is required, and no lawful presumption can be
made. The operator is not entitled to infer, assume, or
speculate that the Keeper was the driver.
This appeal is made strictly in the capacity of Keeper, and Euro
Car Parks is fully aware that their ability to pursue the Keeper
relies on strict compliance with Schedule 4, Paragraph 14 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As established in Section 1 of
this appeal, ECP has not complied with the mandatory conditions
of Paragraph 14. Therefore, they have no lawful basis to
transfer liability to the Keeper.
Where liability cannot transfer, the only party potentially
liable is the driver. However, where the driver has not been
identified — and no lawful inference can be drawn — the operator
is left without a liable party.
The law is unequivocal. PoFA does not permit a parking operator
to simply pursue the most convenient or likely person. Liability
must lie either with:
•The driver (if known or admitted); or
• The keeper but only if full and correct PoFA compliance has
been achieved.
In this case, the Keeper is not shown to be the driver, and the
operator has failed to meet the statutory gateway for pursuing
the Keeper. Therefore, no party is lawfully liable, and the
charge must be cancelled.
Appeal point #3 Conclusion
The Keeper has made no admission as to being the driver, and the
operator has not complied with the strict statutory requirements
needed to hold the Keeper liable under PoFA. As such, Euro Car
Parks is attempting to hold an unidentified party liable in
direct contravention of the statute. The charge is therefore
unenforceable, and the appeal must be allowed.
3. The Signage Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraphs
2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) – The Parking Charge Was Not Given Adequate
Notice
Euro Car Parks (ECP) has failed to comply with the statutory
requirement under Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) of Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). These provisions
state that, to be enforceable, a parking charge must be
adequately notified to the driver at the time the vehicle was
parked.
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(2):
“The reference in the definition of ‘parking charge’ to a sum in
the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was
given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the
relevant land).”
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii):
“Adequate notice” means the display of one or more notices
which:
“(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers
who park vehicles on the relevant land.”
It is not enough for a parking operator to simply claim that
signs were present. The sum being demanded must be clearly
specified and prominent on those signs, and the signage must be
adequate to bring that charge to the attention of drivers.
Why the Signage at Dominie Cross, Retford Fails to Meet These
Requirements
The signage at this location falls far short of what is required
to satisfy Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii). Specifically:
• The parking charge is buried in small print within a densely
worded sign and is not legible or visible from a moving vehicle
or from a reasonable distance.
• The signage does not specify the charge in a manner that is
prominent or apparent to drivers at the point of decision (i.e.
when entering or parking).
• The charge is not brought to the attention of the driver in a
manner that could fairly be described as “adequate” under the
statutory definition.
• There is no large, clear warning that a failure to purchase a
pay-by-phone session will incur a specified charge.
• The charge is not immediately obvious, nor is it specified as
a penalty for unauthorised parking in a conspicuous manner.
Accordingly, ECP is attempting to enforce a parking charge that
does not meet the legal definition of a ‘parking charge’ under
PoFA Schedule 4. The sum was not adequately notified, and
therefore cannot be recovered from the driver (if known).
Relevant Standards and Best Practice
These defects also breach:
• The British Parking Association Code of Practice v9 (January
2024), Section 19.3 and Appendix B, which require that the
parking charge must be prominently displayed and clearly
legible, with core contractual terms (including the charge)
being immediately apparent.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015, which mandates that any term
likely to disadvantage the consumer (such as a £100 penalty)
must be transparent and prominent.
This was reaffirmed in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67,
where the £85 charge was prominently displayed and therefore
enforceable. The contrast with this case is stark: ECP’s charge
is not prominent and would not withstand equivalent judicial
scrutiny.
Appeal point #3 Conclusion
The signage at Dominie Cross, Retford fails to satisfy PoFA
Schedule 4 Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3)(b)(ii) because the charge
was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver. As
such, no enforceable parking charge exists, and the appeal must
be allowed on this basis alone.
4. The Operator is Put to Strict Proof that its Signage Complies
with the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January 2024)
Euro Car Parks is a member of the British Parking Association
(BPA) and is therefore required to adhere to the BPA Code of
Practice Version 9 (January 2024). The operator is put to strict
proof that the signage at Whale Bone Lane South – Dagenham fully
complies with the relevant provisions of this Code.
In particular:
• Section 19.3 requires that signs must be clear and
intelligible to drivers, and visible from a distance.
• Section 19.5 requires that the parking charge itself must be
prominently displayed and not hidden within terms and
conditions.
• Appendix B of the Code sets out minimum standards for font
size, contrast, lighting, and the positioning of signage, such
that drivers are given a fair opportunity to see, read, and
understand the terms before parking.
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with
these requirements as they stood at the time of the alleged
contravention, including:
• The exact wording and appearance of the signage at the site;
• A site plan showing the location and orientation of each sign;
• Evidence that all signs were clearly legible, properly
positioned, and visible from all entry points;
• Whether the signs were illuminated or otherwise visible during
hours of darkness.
Failure to provide such evidence should be taken by POPLA as
confirmation that the signage was not compliant, and therefore
no contractual charge is enforceable.
5. Strict Proof of Landowner Authority – No Locus Standi Without
Full and Evidenced Rights
Euro Car Parks (ECP) is put to strict proof that it holds a
valid, contemporaneous, and fully executed contract with the
landowner (or a duly authorised agent) granting it the authority
to manage parking, issue PCNs, and enforce those charges in its
own name at Dominie Cross, Retford.
It is not sufficient for the operator to rely on:
• a generic witness statement;
• a short letter merely asserting that a contract exists;
• or any heavily redacted or undated document lacking legal
specificity.
To establish locus standi, the operator must supply the full,
unredacted contract, which must include all of the following:
• The full commencement and expiry dates of the contract,
confirming the precise period for which authority was granted;
• Confirmation that the agreement was in force on the date of
the alleged contravention;
• The full terms and conditions originally agreed between the
operator and the landowner or agent, including the exact terms
to be imposed on drivers;
• A clear definition of the land covered by the agreement,
including plans or maps where applicable;
• Explicit confirmation within the contract that ECP has the
authority to:
• manage the site;
• issue Parking Charge Notices;
• and pursue payment and legal action in its own name;
Details of any material amendments to those terms since the
contract’s inception, including:
• What those changes were;
• When they were agreed;
• And confirmation that the contract was formally varied and
remains binding in its amended form.
This level of documentary scrutiny is essential to confirm that
any contractual terms relied on in the signage (and any related
PCN) were valid and properly authorised at the relevant time.
POPLA is therefore respectfully reminded that it must not accept
generic, redacted, or vague evidence in support of such a
fundamental claim of legal standing.
Applicable Code of Practice
While the signage at the site is governed by the BPA Code of
Practice v9 (January 2024), all other operator conduct —
including contractual authority — is now governed by the BPA/IPC
Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires
that operators:
“...must on request provide evidence of the written
authorisation from the landholder (or their appointed agent) to
manage the relevant site... including the scope, terms, and
effective dates of such authority.”
Legal and Evidential Position
The principle that a private parking operator must hold either a
proprietary interest in the land or a clear, legally binding
agreement conferring enforcement authority has been repeatedly
confirmed by the courts. Notably, in Vehicle Control Services
Ltd v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, it was made clear that a mere
licence to access the land is insufficient for contract
formation and enforcement.
If Euro Car Parks cannot supply all of the above in full and
unredacted form, then it has no legal standing to issue or
pursue any PCN at this location, and the appeal must be allowed
in full.
Conclusion
In summary, Euro Car Parks has failed to meet the statutory
requirements necessary to hold the Hirer liable under Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Hirer is
non-compliant; the signage does not give adequate notice of the
charge; no admission has been made as to the identity of the
driver; and the operator has not provided evidence of either
signage compliance with the BPA Code of Practice v9 (January
2024) or valid landowner authority as required by the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
On all grounds presented, the charge is unenforceable, and POPLA
is invited to allow this appeal in full and direct the operator
to cancel the Parking Charge.
#Post#: 100897--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: b789
Date: December 3, 2025, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You know, I won't even bother reading or analysing it because
there is little chance that POPLA will accept it anyway. All
these ECP PCNS end up being claims that are eventually
discontinued.
Have a read of any of the other multitude of ECP claims issued
by DCB Legal to understand the process. As long as all the debt
recovery letters are ignored and the claim is defended, it will
never reach a hearing in court. We assist every step of the way.
#Post#: 102197--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: December 12, 2025, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. The appeal has been submitted. My understanding of
next steps is:
the appeal will be rejected
I will receive demands in the post from ECP, debt collectors and
a legal team
I ignore all of these until I receive a letter of claim from DCB
legal
I then come back here and ask for help on a defense
is that about right?
Thanks for all your help
Bob
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page