DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104390--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: January 3, 2026, 6:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your help guys. Here's an update. ECP have provided
evidence to POPLA and I have been invited to comment on their
evidence. I've included below some of their key defenses, they
also provided lots of photos of signage and the memorandum of
understanding between BVRLA and BPA.
Do you have any guidance for what I should write as a comment to
this evidence?
Thanks,
Bob
INCORRECT VRM
ECP provided an image of the data input into the ticket machine
which reveal a bunch of 7-digit registrations with my 3-digit
registration in the middle. They then say:
Drivers' details are censored due to the Data Protection*
• As the driver failed to enter their full registration while
making the payment is a breach
of the code terms and conditions of parking and failure to
purchase a valid pay and
display ticket:
UNIDENTIFIED DRIVER
XXXXXX then appealed the PCN and declined to provide the details
of the driver on the day
in question. As no other details have been provided, the
liability for the notice remains with
XXXXXXX as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
THE PROCESS
Our PCN (Parking Charge Notice) is the first communication with
the registered keeper – this is referred
to as the Notice to Keeper or Notice to Owner
The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by both the BPA and the IPC,
and we have confirmation
that our PCN (NTK/NTO) and has been approved as compliant with
POFA.
The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by Gladstones Solicitors who
specialise in assisting
private car park operators – legal advice and pre legal advice
with regards signage and adhering
to POFA and both code of practice
Please be advised once the registered keeper has been sent the
PCN (NTK/NTO) if there is no
response, payment, appeal, serviceable address of the driver –
ECP process a Notice To Keeper – this
is a “reminder letter” and sent in reference to the PCN
(NTK/NTO) that has not been responded to.
If we are in receipt of a serviceable address of the driver –
the PCN (NTK/NTO) is re-issued.
If the registered keeper is in receipt of the PCN (NTK/NTO) and
has passed to the driver and the driver
appeals – we will respond to the appeal strictly following the
code and ensure any/all communication is
sent to the driver (we would not at this stage re-issue the PCN)
We have been advised that the above is standard practice for all
private car park operators in regard to
PCN (NTK/NTO) issued on Automatic Number Plate Recognition car
parks.
SUMMARY
The appellant was given the opportunity to pay £20 for a period
of 14 days as it is advised
in Annex F of the BPA Code of Practice:
• By appealing to POPLA the opportunity to pay £20 is no longer
available, the full amount
for the PCN is payable.
• Please note that the VRM entered was OTA instead of FJ60OTA,
therefore the PCN was
issued correctly.
• The car park in question is on private land and upon entering
such land vehicles are
subject to the terms and conditions of parking as shown on the
signage. This signage
quite clearly states that if your vehicle is in breach of the
terms and conditions of the car
park then a parking charge notice (PCN) will be issued.
• On entry to private land, it is the responsibility of the
driver to check for signage and
ensure that your vehicle has been correctly parked. Any vehicles
found not adhering to
the signage will be issued with a parking charge notice (PCN).
• Please be advised that there are a number of signs around the
car park indicating the
restrictions of the site and it is the responsibility of the
driver to read them when parking.
• 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.
#Post#: 110895--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: February 24, 2026, 3:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys
Just an update. As you predicted, POPLA have rejected my appeal.
I'll be back in touch when I receive my Letter of Claim.
Thanks,
Bob
#Post#: 110917--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 24, 2026, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please show the complete POPLA response.
#Post#: 110937--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: February 24, 2026, 7:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA assessment and decision
20/02/2026
Verification Code
*********
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Taylor-Jade Ryan
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN)
as no valid pay and display or permit was purchased.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the
parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have
summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • A valid
pay to park session was purchased • The machine only captured
the last 3 digits of the registration • This is not a keying
error but a failure of the equipment • No liability has been
established • The signage on site is inadequate and is not
compliant with the code of practice • No landowner authority The
appellant has provided 1. A copy of the parking ticket purchased
The above has been considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows
parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered
keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified.
Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning
the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking
operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver
within 28 days. In this case, I have reviewed the PCN in
question and it has the necessary information required, and so
the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability
onto the registered keeper. In this case, Sarah Jane Booth. The
appellant has provided evidence that a ticket was purchased by
the driver, but due to a machine malfunction, the full
registration was not printed, despite it being entered. It is
important that a motorist enters their full vehicle registration
when making payment, to allow the system to calculate if the
correct fee has been paid against the amount of time the vehicle
spends within the car park, which is captured and calculated by
the cameras. If the correct registration is not entered, and no
payment can be located for the specific vehicle that is parked,
the system will identify that a breach has occurred due to
failing to pay, and a PCN is issued. The parking operator has
provided a list of other vehicles that were able to make payment
on the day in question, and these payments were made against the
full vehicle registration, therefore, I am satisfied that the
error did not lie with the technology on this occasion, and that
this was human error. Given the appellant provided evidence of a
payment made, albeit to the incomplete registration, they did
consider a keying error. The Appeals Charter is a statement
within the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice which
details how certain circumstances should be handled by the
parking operator. This details when a parking charge should be
cancelled, and when a parking charge should be reduced to £20,
when an appeal is based on an error or mitigating circumstances.
Clause F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a
parking operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to
appropriate evidence being provided to allow them to claim back
costs that they have incurred for having to send the PCN out,
due to the motorist’s error. Such as if a driver has paid the
tariff or registered their vehicle but they have swapped
characters, have digits missing or have entered the wrong
registration completely. In this case, the operator reduced the
charge to £20 for a period of 14 days as per the requirements of
the code, but this offer was rejected as an appeal was raised
with POPLA instead. This leaves the full charge amount now
payable. Clause 3.1.3 of the Single Sector code of practice
advises the signs must be placed throughout the site, so that
drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or
leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear
and use a font and contrast that is visible and readable. The
parking operator has provided images of the signs on site, along
with a site map confirming their placement. This evidence shows
that the terms are appropriately placed, and I am satisfied that
the terms of parking, along with the consequences are adequately
brought to a driver's attention. This is clearly evidenced in
the fact the driver made a payment on this day; therefore, I am
satisfied the signs were seen and understood. Clause 3.1.4 of
the Code states signs informing drivers that a parking charge is
applicable must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness
to the main text. On paid parking sites, the charge must be in a
font no smaller than the tariffs or numbers. The signs confirm
that the charge amount of £75 is in comparable size, and a bold
font. I agree this meets the requirements of this clause. The
appellant appeals on the basis the parking operator doesn’t own
the site and has no contract to manage parking there. Clause 14
of the relevant version of the Code says that, assuming they
don’t own car parks, parking operators must have the authority
of landowners to manage parking on them and issue charges for
breaking any terms. The parking operator states in its response
to the appeal that it has relevant authority to manage the car
park, along with a copy of the redacted contract. It’s provided
evidence to show it’s installed numerous signs as well as an
automatic camera system on the car park. On balance, I’m
satisfied that the operator had authority to manage the car park
on the date in question. The signs are clear that payment must
be made to cover the full parking duration, or a charge of £75
will be issued. Whilst there is no dispute the driver had all
intentions of paying to park correctly, it cannot be ignored
that the fee paid was not valid as it was not made against the
full, correct vehicle registration as required. Accordingly, I
conclude that the charge was issued correctly, and the appeal is
refused.
#Post#: 110974--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Dominie Cross Pub Retford, Euro Car Parks, incorrect
registration entered
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 24, 2026, 9:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, your POPLA appeal was far too complex and should
have focused purely on the non compliant PCN as this was easily
demonstrated - as a result the POPLA assessor was more than
happy to simply skip over this point.
Next stage is to wait for a Letter Before Claim.
In the meantime, you could complain to POPLA about the assessor
not correctly examining the PoFA compliance points - namely; no
invitation to the keeper to pay the charges etc.
Make sure you complain as 'Procedural Error'.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page