DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 96554--------------------------------------------------
PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The White
Horse Pub, Shenley
By: markeman Date: November 2, 2025, 2:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle stopped briefly in a pub car park to use the loo,
stretch legs and catch up on emails in between ferrying kids
around. The pub requires vehicles are registered on arrival but
this was missed, resulting in the following NTK:
[list]
[li]
HTML https://postimg.cc/CRSjKpJB[/li]
[li]
HTML https://postimg.cc/jDcyw3k8[/li]
[/list]
I expect the pub will require proof of purchase to assist in
waiving the PCN, but unfortunately nothing was purchased on this
occasion.
No action taken re. the PCN yet.
Any guidance from the experts here would be very welcome as
always, thank you
#Post#: 96566--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: b789 Date: November 2, 2025, 5:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No one pays a penny to ECP if they follow the advice we give
here. Most ECP PCNs that are challenged go all the way to a
county court claim which is issued by DCB Legal. As long as any
DCB Legal claim is defended, it will eventually either be struck
out or discontinued. That is 99.9% for sure.
Normally, you go through the process of initial appeal,
rejection, POPLA appeal, rejection, county court claim, defence,
strike-out/discontinuance. The initial appeal is generic but it
covers the main point that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not
fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012 to be
able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.
This is the normal recommended appeal process: There is no legal
obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to
Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and
no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
[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. 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.[/quote]
Once you receive the appeal rejection, come back and we will
provide the POPLA appeal, which will go into greater detail on
why the PCN fails to comply with PoFA para 9(2)(e)(i).
#Post#: 97497--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: markeman Date: November 9, 2025, 3:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you [member=26]b789[/member], appeal submitted
#Post#: 101074--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: markeman Date: December 5, 2025, 3:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ECP have rejected the appeal. Interesting they state "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".
Their response in full:
[list]
[li]
HTML https://ibb.co/wrJ6vf5k[/li]
[li]
HTML https://ibb.co/kVgKZZky[/li]
[li]
HTML https://ibb.co/nsndkhX4[/li]
[/list]
#Post#: 101133--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: b789 Date: December 5, 2025, 8:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just do a search for any other of the multitude of ECP PANs on
this forum. Even a POPLA appeal is unlikely o be successful. So
what? A POPLA decision is not binding on the appellant.
You can do a search for any other POPLA appeal on here and adapt
it if you feel the urge to make one. Even if you do nothing, you
can safely ignore all the useless debt recovery letters that you
will receive and all you haver to do is defend a claim once they
issue it through DCB Legal. We will assist with that and I can
guarantee with greater than 99.9% certainty that the claim will
either be struck out or discontinued.
If you still want to bother with a POPLA appeal, then show us
something you have concocted based on any of the more recent
examples you can find on here and we will advise on whether it
needs any amendments. There is more than enough material on the
forum for you to put something together yourself.
#Post#: 102328--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: markeman Date: December 13, 2025, 11:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My sample POPLA appeal below, I would very much welcome expert
advice.
Other POPLA appeals on the forum refer to "3. Defective warning
of keeper liability (Paragraph 9(2)(f))" in relation to the PoFA
requirement to warn that the keeper will become liable "after
the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which
the notice is given", but I note on the original NtK ECP did use
the correct wording so I have excluded this from the appeal.
[hr]
POPLA Appeal – Euro Car Parks – M&B - The White Horse, Shenley
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I appeal this Parking
Charge Notice as keeper only. There will be no admission as to
the identity of the driver, and no assumptions or inferences can
be drawn.
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with multiple
mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), and therefore no
keeper liability can arise. The operator may only pursue the
driver for payment, not the registered keeper. The deficiencies
are as follows:
1. Failure to specify the period of parking (Paragraph 9(2)(a))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land
on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the
notice relates.”
This NtK contains no “period of parking”. It merely states that
a parking charge was issued for “vehicle was not authorised to
park” and refers to a date of issue. ANPR systems record entry
and exit times, but those are not synonymous with a period of
parking because they do not show when the vehicle was
stationary. The vehicle may have spent time queuing,
manoeuvring, or exiting. The Department for Transport’s
statutory guidance and persuasive appeal decisions (e.g. Brennan
v Premier Parking (2023)) make clear that a period of parking
must refer to an actual time parked, not merely camera
timestamps. This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with
9(2)(a).
2. Failure to properly invite the keeper to pay or name the
driver (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i))
PoFA requires the notice to “state that the creditor does not
know both the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i) to pay the
unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the
driver, to provide the name of the driver and a current address
for service for the driver.”
The NtK does not invite the keeper to pay. Instead, it commands:
“If you were not the driver... please provide full name and
address of the driver in writing and pass the notice ont to the
driver". This is a material deviation from the statutory
wording. Parliament intended the keeper to be given the option
either to pay or to name the driver. A command to “inform us” is
not an invitation to pay. The omission defeats one of PoFA’s key
procedural safeguards and invalidates keeper liability.
3. Failure to unambiguously identify the creditor (Paragraph
9(2)(h))
PoFA requires the NtK to “identify the creditor and specify how
and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be
made.”
The NtK makes conflicting assertions, in one that "the Parking
Charge is now payable to Euro Car Parks (as the creditor)” and
in another "The Parking Charge Notice.. is now payable to Euro
Car Parks Ltd (as the creditor)". The the full legal entity
name is unclear (possibly omitted), and the company number and
registered address are ommitted. Without a full legal identity,
the keeper cannot know who the creditor actually is, making the
notice defective under 9(2)(h).
4. Ambiguous dating and delivery wording (Paragraphs 9(2)(i) and
9(4))
PoFA requires the notice to “specify the date on which the
notice is sent (given)” and defines when it is deemed “given.”
The NtK refers only to a “Date Issued” without confirming when
or how it was sent or delivered. This vagueness prevents a
reliable calculation of statutory deadlines and is another
failure to meet PoFA’s strict requirements.
Conclusion
PoFA Schedule 4 is a strict liability framework: every
requirement must be met before any right to recover a parking
charge from a vehicle’s keeper arises. The NtK in this case
fails to meet at least paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e), and is
further undermined by non-compliance with 9(2)(h) and 9(2)(i).
As a result, Euro Car Parks cannot transfer liability from the
unknown driver to the keeper. The operator may only pursue the
driver, whose identity has not been provided. The appeal should
therefore be allowed.
Other Consideration
I also require strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract
or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator
to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its
own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section
14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly
sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced
before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have
in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the
Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
#Post#: 102331--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: jfollows Date: December 13, 2025, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good, but when reading that I also want to see precisely what
PoFA says, in other words I want you to quote the precise text
as well.
If nothing else, some POPLA assessors are, shall we say, a bit
dim, so they need strong guidance.
#Post#: 102385--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: b789 Date: December 14, 2025, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't place much hope on POPLA. If it works, then great.
However, 99% of these ECP PCNs are won when they eventually give
it to DCB Legal to issue a county court claim and if you follow
the advice, I can guarantee that the claim will either be struck
out or discontinued. It just takes longer but there is nothing
to worry about.
I am always prepared to take any bet at 10:1 that this will
never reach a hearing in county court. Any takers?
#Post#: 102395--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: markeman Date: December 14, 2025, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=636]jfollows[/member] Thank you, please see v2 of POPLA
appeal below incorporating feedback (main changes are consistent
use of "NtK" abbreviation; latest text copied from PoFA
legislation online
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/paragraph/9;<br
/>latest text copied from PPSCoP Section 14 online
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf<br
/>and expanded for completeness covering all points (a)-(j)).
[member=26]b789[/member] Noted re. chance of POPLA success.
Happy for the process to play out in full, doesn't seem like
much, if any, downside.
[hr]
POPLA Appeal – Euro Car Parks – M&B - The White Horse, Shenley
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I appeal this Parking
Charge Notice as keeper only. There will be no admission as to
the identity of the driver, and no assumptions or inferences can
be drawn.
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with multiple
mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), and therefore no
keeper liability can arise. The operator may only pursue the
driver for payment, not the registered keeper. The deficiencies
are as follows:
1. Failure to specify the period of parking (Paragraph 9(2)(a))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land
on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the
notice relates.”
This NtK contains no “period of parking”. It merely states that
a parking charge was issued for “vehicle was not authorised to
park” and refers to a date of issue. ANPR systems record entry
and exit times, but those are not synonymous with a period of
parking because they do not show when the vehicle was
stationary. The vehicle may have spent time queuing,
manoeuvring, or exiting. The Department for Transport’s
statutory guidance and persuasive appeal decisions (e.g. Brennan
v Premier Parking (2023)) make clear that a period of parking
must refer to an actual time parked, not merely camera
timestamps. This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with
9(2)(a).
2. Failure to properly invite the keeper to pay or name the
driver (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i))
PoFA requires the NtK to “state that the creditor does not know
both the name of the driver and a current address for service
for the driver and invite the keeper- (i) to pay the unpaid
parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the
vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a
current address for service for the driver and to pass the
notice on to the driver"
The NtK does not invite the keeper to pay. Instead, it commands:
“If you were not the driver... please provide full name and
address of the driver in writing and pass the notice ont to the
driver". This is a material deviation from the statutory
wording. Parliament intended the keeper to be given the option
either to pay or to name the driver. A command to “inform us” is
not an invitation to pay. The omission defeats one of PoFA’s key
procedural safeguards and invalidates keeper liability.
3. Failure to unambiguously identify the creditor (Paragraph
9(2)(h))
PoFA requires the NtK to “identify the creditor and specify how
and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be
made”.
The NtK makes conflicting assertions, in one that "the Parking
Charge is now payable to Euro Car Parks (as the creditor)” and
in another "The Parking Charge Notice.. is now payable to Euro
Car Parks Ltd (as the creditor)". The the full legal entity
name is unclear (possibly omitted), and the company number and
registered address are ommitted. Without a full legal identity,
the keeper cannot know who the creditor actually is, making the
notice defective under 9(2)(h).
4. Ambiguous dating and delivery wording (Paragraphs 9(2)(i) and
9(4))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the date on which the notice
is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case)”
in Paragraph 9(2)(i) and defines when it is deemed “given” in
Paragraph 9(4) as "(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it
at a current address for service for the keeper, within the
relevant period; or (b) sending it by post to a current address
for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that
address within the relevant period."
The NtK refers only to a “Date Issued” without confirming when
or how it was sent or delivered. This vagueness prevents a
reliable calculation of statutory deadlines and is another
failure to meet PoFA’s strict requirements.
Conclusion
PoFA Schedule 4 is a strict liability framework: every
requirement must be met before any right to recover a parking
charge from a vehicle’s keeper arises. The NtK in this case
fails to meet at least paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e), and is
further undermined by non-compliance with 9(2)(h) and 9(2)(i).
As a result, Euro Car Parks cannot transfer liability from the
unknown driver to the keeper. The operator may only pursue the
driver, whose identity has not been provided. The appeal should
therefore be allowed.
Other Considerations
I also require strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract
or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator
to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its
own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section
14 of the Private Parking Sector single Code of Practice
("PPSCoP") titled "Relationship with Landowner", which clearly
sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced
before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land:
"Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a
landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written
confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the
landowner(s) covering:
a) the identity of the landowner(s)
b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the
management of parking;
d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the
landowner(s) and the duration of that permission
e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by
the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of
free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific
permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those
stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers,
delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;
g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning
or advertising consents relating to signs
h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working,
in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator
may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies
detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals
against parking charges"
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
#Post#: 102397--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: b789 Date: December 14, 2025, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's the point... there is NO downside. Even if you did
nothing until the N1SDT Claim Form lands on your doorstep, as
long as you defend, with or without the template I normally
suggest, if it isn't struck out, it WILL be discontinued.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page