DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 105235--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: markeman Date: January 9, 2026, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Latest update - the ECP has uploaded their evidence to POPLA,
links below (apologies for the many images, this was the best
method I have at my disposal to safely redact a PDF). I have a
couple of days to make any comments, which I'm sure I'll be
advised is pointless.
From my layman's perspective they appear to have focused on the
Contract Law argument but I'll let those more qualified to
opine!
HTML https://ibb.co/93mH77YR
HTML https://ibb.co/KxLKTLgW
HTML https://ibb.co/2Yv316GH
HTML https://ibb.co/Z0FmLyP
HTML https://ibb.co/vNyG5PV
HTML https://ibb.co/hxkf0ySr
HTML https://ibb.co/4nq2tCBq
HTML https://ibb.co/2125dS67
HTML https://ibb.co/V0w8P5Qh
HTML https://ibb.co/N6jk581s
HTML https://ibb.co/v6LPhcsR
HTML https://ibb.co/2791k8vc
HTML https://ibb.co/WNCNxV0c
HTML https://ibb.co/SXsv3wFR
HTML https://ibb.co/0pp1B0jK
HTML https://ibb.co/pjSjr5Rn
HTML https://ibb.co/PnGB3sX
HTML https://ibb.co/DDXZwRXk
HTML https://ibb.co/xKbWv6Cn
HTML https://ibb.co/jvgr6B8T
HTML https://ibb.co/2YcgR6kq
HTML https://ibb.co/6V0Ncm2
HTML https://ibb.co/hJMvvwCH
HTML https://ibb.co/VYvxdKf6
HTML https://ibb.co/Z1Wxxwnj
HTML https://ibb.co/nNyrvKk8
HTML https://ibb.co/BHFJdFvR
HTML https://ibb.co/CsK20pbf
HTML https://ibb.co/jPYWBTbW
HTML https://ibb.co/Z6q9JN5z
HTML https://ibb.co/r2XDNkXw
HTML https://ibb.co/wNCThymV
HTML https://ibb.co/bgSrmZJ1
#Post#: 110840--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: markeman Date: February 23, 2026, 2:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA outcome received - appeal unsuccessful. Their arguments
below, does anyone feel these hold water?
If I don't pay now I guess it's the usual debt collector waiting
game, followed by the small claims court process for which a
successful outcome depends on the competence of their
solicitors.
I'd be interested to hear the expert views out there on the path
likely to lead to the best outcome.
[quote]
The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the
day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to
demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability
for the PCN, as the keeper.
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator
has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver
has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the
car park. The appellant has stated that the PCN does not comply
with PoFA on multiples grounds. PoFA 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.
Firstly, they state that the period of parking is not detailed
on the PCN and the ANPR entry/exit images are not synonymous
with a period of parking. Whilst I acknowledge the PCN only
includes ANPR entry/exit times, I am satisfied that this is the
period of parking in question as a motorists must consider the
full duration of their stay, including any time to find a space
or leave the site, from entry to exit when parking on the site.
There is also no evidence to suggest that the appellant’s
vehicle was on any other site during this time.
I note the appellant has referred to Brennan v Premier Parking
(2023) however, this is not a Supreme Court case and as such,
does not set a precedent for parking.
The appellant has stated that the PCN does not include a proper
invitation to the keeper. The PCN states, “If you were not the
driver at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued, please
provide full name and address of the driver in writing and pass
the notice on to the driver.” I am satisfied that this is a
clear invitation from the parking operator to the keeper to
identify the driver.
The appellant has also stated that the creditor has been
identified as both “Euro Car Parks” and “Euro Car Parks Ltd” and
this creates confusion. Whilst I acknowledge the minor
differences here, I am satisfied that this is same parking
operator and suitable identifies the creditor.
The appellant also mentions that there is no evidence as to how
and when the PCN was delivered. Parking operators have to follow
certain rules including issuing a PCN to be received within the
required timescale. PoFA states that the NTK must be issued and
received with 14 days and it is assumed, unless proven
otherwise, to be delivered within 2 working days from the date
it was issued. For this to happen the NTK needed to have been
received by 05/11/2025, as the date of contravention was
22/10/2025. As it was issued on 28/10/2025, I would expect the
PCN to be received 2 working days later on 30/10/2025. As such,
the PCN complies with PoFA and the parking operator is within
their rights to seek the PCN from the keeper.
The appellant has also requested evidence of the landowner
contract. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice
(The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to
comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where
controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner,
written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge
can be issued. In this case, the parking operator has included a
copy of the contract they have with the landowner that shows
they have the authority to issue and enforce PCNs on this land.
On this site, the signage explains that this is a guest only car
park and guests must register their full and correct vehicle
registration on the console inside the pub. The signage also
explains that a £100 PCN would be issued for any breach of the
terms and conditions. The parking operator has included a
redacted list of vehicles that shows the appellant’s vehicle was
not registered on the site. As such, the vehicle was parked here
in breach of the terms and conditions and this has resulted in
the issuance of a £100 PCN.
After considering the evidence from both parties, the vehicle
was unauthorised to park and therefore did not comply with the
terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the
parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the
appeal.
[/quote]
#Post#: 110888--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: InterCity125 Date: February 24, 2026, 2:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The assessor's response is nonsense.
Notice in particular how they tip-toe around the PoFA issue
being careful to avoid the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the
outstanding parking charge' problem.
You could make a complaint to POPLA highlighting this issue.
#Post#: 111158--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: mickR Date: February 25, 2026, 1:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=InterCity125 link=topic=8625.msg110888#msg110888
date=1771922088]
The assessor's response is nonsense.
Notice in particular how they tip-toe around the PoFA issue
being careful to avoid the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the
outstanding parking charge' problem.
You could make a complaint to POPLA highlighting this issue.
[/quote]
I agree
#Post#: 111183--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: InterCity125 Date: February 26, 2026, 2:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I wrote a complaint for someone yesterday which I can probably
re-hash for your failed appeal.
Let me know if you want me to do that - it won't take long.
What is the assessor's name?
#Post#: 111187--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: InterCity125 Date: February 26, 2026, 3:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=Trebuchet MS]POPLA Complaint - Procedural error and
mishandling of PCN Appeal.
Original POPLA Code -
Assessor Name
Dear Lead Assessor,
I have recently received an appeal response from your
organisation relating to the parking charge identified above.
Unfortunately, the appeal response contains what I can only
describe as a glaring procedural error on the part of the
assessor.
A key point in my appeal was the non PoFA complaint PCN issued
by Euro Car Parks.
This complaint relates purely to the assessor's inability to
correctly establish the legal requirements of PoFA Schedule 4
Paragraph 9(2) and, in particular, the requirements set out by
para. 9(2)(e).
Para 9(2)(e) requires that the operator's NtK must contain a
section of predetermined text followed by a two limbed
invitation to the keeper to either pay the outstanding parking
charges or to provide driver details in the instance that the
keeper was not driving at the time of the alleged contravention.
I am satisfied that my specific appeal point adequately led the
assessor to the precise nature of the issue - that the NtK did
not contain the required paragraph of text and legal choice
which para 9(2)(e) specifically sets out.
At this point, could I respectfully ask you to read and
understand the requirements para 9(2)(e)?
In the appeal response the assessor states the following;
"The appellant has stated that the PCN does not include a proper
invitation to the keeper. The PCN states, “If you were not the
driver at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued, please
provide full name and address of the driver in writing and pass
the notice on to the driver.” I am satisfied that this is a
clear invitation from the parking operator to the keeper to
identify the driver."
In the first instance, I would immediately draw your attention
to the fact that the assessor deliberately manipulates the
nature of my appeal point - the manipulation occurs because the
assessor is struggling to find a rebuttal point if the appeal
point is left unmanipulated - a classic legal deflection
technique.
What the assessor should say is, "The appellant has stated that
the PCN does not include a proper invitation to the keeper to
pay the unpaid parking charges" - the assessor deliberately
curtails my appeal point sentence because the latter part that
says "to pay the unpaid parking charges" is very awkward since
it is not rebuttable by the assessor as the required mandatory
wording is clearly not present on the operators NtK.
In my appeal I set out the total non compliance with para
9(2)(e) and, in particular, the lack of the required statutory
wording along with the non presentation of the required legal
choice which 9(2)(e)(I) and 9(2)(e)(II) specifies - I also made
clear reference to the fact that the NtK never 'invites the
keeper to pay the unpaid charges' as set out in 9(2)(e)(I).
In their response, the assessor deliberately ignores both the
missing mandatory wording and the missing invitation to the
keeper to pay the unpaid charges.
Instead, the assessor deliberately moves focus on the on the
sentence which asks the keeper to nominate the driver.
So, as I'm sure you can see, the assessor is very careful not to
comment on the core issue ie the critical parts of 9(2)(e) which
are missing.
This appears to be a fairly obvious attempt to avoid finding the
NtK to be non compliant - the old adage of, "clarity is exactly
what I'm trying to avoid" is never better demonstrated.
The assessor is clearly trying to make compliance a subjective
issue because objectivity is legally inconvenient.
If the required mandatory wording and subsequent legal choice
was present then I am positive that the assessor would have
pointed this out instead of tactically deflecting away from the
nature of my appeal point.
In simple terms, the invitation to the keeper to identify the
driver is not sufficient to satisfy the complete requirements of
9(2)(e) in the manner which the assessor suggests - 9(2)(e)
actually has multiple requirements and the single sentence which
the assessor mentions would never be enough to meet those
requirements.
The assessor implies that the inclusion of this one sentence
satisfies the requirements of 9(2)(e) - This is a clear and
obvious procedural error since even the most basic examination
of the legislation shows that the requirements of 9(2)(e) are
far greater.
I am sure that by now you will have studied the precise wording
of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) and, in particular 9(2)(e)?
In order to be compliant the NtK must contain specific mandatory
text and legal choices as specified by Schedule 4 of PoFA.
In this instance, the requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph
9(2)(e) are not satisfied by the operators NtK.
To be compliant, the requirements of 9(2)(e) can only be met if
a specific paragraph is placed in the NtK which should read as
follows;
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
At the current time, Euro Car Parks (the creditor) does not know
both the name and a current address for service for the driver.
The keeper is therefore INVITED TO PAY THE UNPAID PARKING
CHARGES
Or
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 this notice onto the driver.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
The required paragraph is clearly missing from the operators
NtK.
The information must be presented in this manner to be compliant
ie in one paragraph. Compliance cannot be achieved by, for
example, placing the information at random points throughout the
NtK since this would not present the keeper with the text
followed by the legal choice which 9(2)(e) requires - this point
is clearly backed up by the precise wording of 9(2)(e) - the
mandatory text which must be immediately followed by the
invitation to the keeper to pay the charges or nominate another
driver.
In this particular instance;
The Euro Car Parks NtK never states the essential mandatory
wording required by para. 9(2)(e) - avoided by the assessor.
The Euro Car Parks NtK never 'invites the keeper to pay the
unpaid parking charges' - avoided and deflected by the assessor.
The Euro Car Parks NtK never uses the required mandatory word
"or" to connect the two required limbs of the legal choices -
avoided by the assessor.
The Euro Car Parks NtK never presents the two limbed legal
invitation which para. 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) requires -
avoided by the assessor.
It remains unclear to me why the assessor behaves in the way
that they do since the requirements of PoFA are actually
straight forward when understood correctly - this gives the
impression that the assessor is carefully tip-toeing around the
key points rather than addressing them - compliance with PoFA is
actually a check box exercise for each case which is reviewed -
it is arguable that POPLA should automatically review NtK's for
compliance in any instance where an operator is claiming keeper
liability since PoFA compliance is 100% identical in every
appeal.
The missing wording / legal choice is fatal to the operator's
reliance on PoFA keeper liability as the legislation requires
total compliance with para 9(2).
A search online reveals that POPLA continue to make the most
basic errors when assessing NtKs for PoFA compliance.
At the present time it appears that all Euro Car Parks NtKs are
non compliant since they lack the required wording.
There appears to be a number of POPLA responses online where
assessor's state that a ECP NtK is compliant when the required
wording is missing - in each instance the assessor either
ignores the appeal point or twists the appeal point in order to
provide rebuttal evidence.
I await your considered response.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxx[/font]
#Post#: 112148--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: InterCity125 Date: March 5, 2026, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=5479]markeman[/member]
Could you please confirm whether this complaint has been
submitted to POPLA for consideration?
#Post#: 112466--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Euro Car Parks - Vehicle not authorised to park - The Wh
ite Horse Pub, Shenley
By: markeman Date: March 8, 2026, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies for slight delay in response
[member=6750]InterCity125[/member].. the joys of life
intervening!
The Assessor's name was Robert Andrews. Thank you for taking
the time to write the letter, I'll have a thorough read before
sending to align my understanding (I like to at least have a
layman's grasp of the legal refs). I assume complaints go to
HTML https://www.popla.co.uk/contact
> Reason for Contact > Complain
About POPLA.
Will confirm once submitted.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page