DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 96956--------------------------------------------------
EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: Sarf London Date: November 5, 2025, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I have just received a Notice
to Keeper - copy attached.
The NtK arrived on day 14 and the alleged overstay was for 37
minutes.
This was a Sainsburys car park which used to be 120 mins free
parking and was reduced to 90 minutes.
To be honest, the driver probably forgot that the time had
reduced.
As It's ECP I presume I'm appealing to them fruitlessly that
their NtK is non-compliant ?
"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. 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."
[pre]
NTK Page 1
HTML https://ibb.co/Jj4MJfv9
NTK Page 2
HTML https://ibb.co/XrF04NPZ
Thanks in advance guys .....[/pre]
#Post#: 96958--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: jfollows Date: November 5, 2025, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, but in what way does it not comply with PoFA 2012?
Not saying that it doesn’t, but what are you going to say to
POPLA when they reject your appeal?
Presumed delivered 31/10 so well within 14 days.
#Post#: 96980--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: b789 Date: November 5, 2025, 2:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
ECP NtKs are never fully compliant with PoFA. They all fail PoFA
para 9(2)(e)(i). Whilst ECP would not agree and most POPLA
assessors are too intellectually malnourished or plainly moronic
to understand, you still go through the motions.
What I can assure you of, with greater than 99.9% certainly, is
that if you follow the advice, you will not have to pay a penny
to ECP.
For now, simply appeal to ECP. 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]
When that is rejected, you will have 33 days to make a POPLA
appeal, which for this operator would include the following
point, amongst the others:
[quote]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).
Like pregnancy, it is binary: 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.[/quote]
#Post#: 97115--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: Sarf London Date: November 6, 2025, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789, I suspected that would be your reply !
Let the motions begin..... dashing off the fruitless appeal to
ECP. WIll keep you in the loop.
#Post#: 102649--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: Sarf London Date: December 16, 2025, 6:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected, they have rejected my appeal. We now move on to
POPLA.
Would you please review my POPLA appeal below ? many thanks.
I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx and I dispute the
above-referenced Parking Charge. The NtK is not compliant with
all the requirements of PoFA which means that they cannot
transfer liability for the charge to the keeper. I therefore
dispute the charge on the following grounds :
1.
2.
3.
4.
Non-Compliance with POFA
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).
Like pregnancy, it is binary: 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.
Inadequate Signage
I refer to Section 3 (signs and surface markings) of the Private
Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Version 1.1 dated 17
February 2025 – the “COP”
The commentary states “Signs and surface markings must be
designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible,
legible and unambiguous to drivers.”
Section 3.1.2 states “The size and positioning of the sign must
take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of
vehicles approaching the entrance and must be visible (i.e. not
be obscured e.g. by foliage or other objects).”
Section 3.1.3 states “Signs within controlled land displaying
the specific terms and conditions applying must:
a) be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have
the chance to
read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle;”
Section 3.2 states “Where different terms and conditions apply
to adjoining stretches of controlled land where there is no
physical segregation, signs and/or surface markings must be used
by the parking operator within the controlled land for which
they are responsible to delineate clearly between these premises
and alert drivers to the terms and conditions applying.”
Section 3.4 in the note acknowledges “[…] the need to avoid
confusion and clutter at entrances […]”
The signage at this location fails on all the above criteria.
There is a single entrance sign. It is not the sign included in
the operator’s response to appeal – that is located elsewhere.
According to the COP (Table A.2) this sign contains ‘group 1
text’ . The COP states that for “Car park entered from
higher-speed road or using a length of access road” the typical
approach speed will be 25mph and the Group 1 text should be a
minimum of 90mm. This car park is approached from just such a
road and as can be seen from photograph 10, the Group 1 text is
45mm – half the required size.
The entrance to the land is shown in photograph 4 in context of
the driver’s view. This is the view from 30 metres. It is
obvious that a driver travelling at 20+ mph along this road,
with the afternoon Winter sun directly ahead, will be looking at
the jutting corner of the building, not at an obscure sign on
the wall which is the wrong size, contrary to sections 3.1.2 and
3.1.3 of the COP.
This view is further made problematic by being mixed in with
other signs. The Smart Charge company sign is much bigger and
this company even felt the need to put a sign up on the opposite
side of the road. In addition, there is much clutter of no
parking signs around the area (see photographs 1-3) contrary to
sections 3.2 and 3.4 of the COP. Its is ironic that the clutter
of other signage has been created by the same parking operator.
There is no obligation to visit Sainsburys. Photographs 5-9 show
the route this vehicle took to arrive at a parking space showing
that it is perfectly possible (as happened in this case) to park
where this car was and leave the site without seeing a single
sign.
Considering the signage in place at this particular site against
the requirements of the COP and PoFA, it is beyond any doubt
that the signage is not sufficient to give adequate notice of
the charge and bring the parking charge to the attention of the
motorist.
No evidence of parking
I have seen examples of these ‘Notice to Keeper’ letters shown
to me by friends. It seems to be common practice to include
photos of the vehicle entering and leaving the site, together
with a time stamp. Whilst evidence of entering and leaving site
is not evidence of parking, EuroCarParks have failed to include
even this basic information in their notice.
I require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle
entering and leaving the site which conform to Section 7.3 of
the COP. Without these, we only have ECP’s word that an
infringement has potentially been committed.
No evidence of Landowner authority
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of
contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority
flowing from the landowner of the "relevant land" to the
operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to
the landowner’s definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of
operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to
complaints nor that both the landowner and operator are in full
compliance with planning permission granted against a Traffic
Management Plan.
Section 14 of the COP defines the mandatory requirements and I
put this operator to strict proof of full compliance. As this
operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant
land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the
contract with the landowner, to prove that they have the right
to enforce the charge in court in their own name
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.
#Post#: 102767--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: b789 Date: December 16, 2025, 7:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That’s good to go, for what it’s worth. As I have said in many
identical ECP threads, POPLA is unlikely to be successful but if
all the advice is followed and this runs the usual course of a
claim eventually being issued and defended, it will eventually
be struck out or discontinued.
#Post#: 110999--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: Sarf London Date: February 24, 2026, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Rachel Hankinson
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
for overstaying the maximum time period allowed.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds, which have been
summarised: • The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as it omits the mandatory
invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. •
The signage is inadequate as the text is half the required size
and a driver would not be able to see the entrance sign. • There
is no evidence of parking, and the operator has failed to
include entry and exit images. They require full unredacted
copies of photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the
site. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. After
reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack, the appellant
expands on their grounds of appeal in further detail. The
appellant has provided images of signage as evidence towards
their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my
decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
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 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. In this case, the PCN in question has the
necessary information and the parking operator has therefore
successfully transferred the liability onto the registered
keeper. The appellant says that the Notice to Keeper is not
compliant with PoFA 2012 as it omits the mandatory invitation to
the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. However, the
Notice to Keeper makes it clear that the keeper may be pursued
for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid and failure to
make payment may result in additional costs.
The appellant says that the signage is inadequate as the text is
half the required size and a driver would not be able to see the
entrance sign. I note that the appellant has referred to the new
code of practice regarding signage. However, this is not yet
applicable. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of
Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to
comply with regarding signage. Section 19.2 of the Code says
parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear
a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case, the
evidence provided by the appellant and the operator shows that
an entrance sign is present within an appropriate place and
makes clear that terms are applicable. Section 19.3 states that
parking operators need to have signage that clearly set out the
terms. After reviewing the signage provided by both parties, I
can see that these clearly state that terms are applicable. Bold
text makes it clear that the maximum stay is 90 minutes, and any
breaches would result in a £100 PCN being issued. The parking
operator has provided a site map and multiple images which show
that signs are placed throughout site ensuring that motorists
can review. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage
complies with the Code of Practice.
The appellant states that there is no evidence of parking, and
the operator has failed to include entry and exit images. They
require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle
entering and leaving the site. The site in question is ANPR
operated. Every accessible entry and exit point to this car park
is managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an
infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by,
which is why it is important that motorists enter their full,
correct registration so this can be calibrated to the images of
their vehicle obtained from the ANPR cameras to determine
whether the vehicle did in fact pay for adequate or inadequate
time. Independent research has found that ANPR technology is
generally reliable. As I accept there is the possibility for
inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests
the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time.
Two ANPR images featured on the PCN show the appellant’s vehicle
registration XXXX XXX entering site at 14:28 and vacating at
16:35, 2 hours 7 minutes after arriving. However, no evidence
has been provided by the appellant to show that the driver was
in an alternative area between the time frames pictured on the
PCN, so we are unable to presume that they were not on site
after being pictured entering at 14:28 and not leaving until 2
hours 7 minutes later. As the appellant has not provided any
evidence to the contrary, I will work on the basis that the
information is accurate. As the driver was on site for 2 hours 7
minutes and exceeded the allowed maximum stay, a PCN was issued
for breaching the displayed terms. The appellant says that there
is no evidence of landowner authority.
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 document provided shows that the operator has
sufficient authority to issue PCN’s. Within their comments to
the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their
grounds for appeal in further detail. Whilst I appreciate the
appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed these grounds
as part of my assessment, such comments have no bearing on
POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further comments to make
about these grounds at this stage. Based on the evidence
provided by both parties towards the appeal, I am satisfied that
a breach occurred as the driver exceeded the maximum stay. I
conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and therefore, the
appeal is refused.
The paragraph 9 issue was not addressed, but the Assessor has
also completely ignored the fact that the signage requirements
are the same through all previous versions of the COP and
dismissed my argument wholesale simply becuase the current
version doesnt apply until later this year.
Thoughts ?
#Post#: 111003--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: InterCity125 Date: February 24, 2026, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unbelievable.
She admits that the mandatory wording isn't present but implies
that a different warning subjectively satisfies the requirements
- this is nonsense.
#Post#: 111005--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: Brenda_R2 Date: February 24, 2026, 10:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=InterCity125 link=topic=8666.msg111003#msg111003
date=1771950847]
Unbelievable.
She admits that the mandatory wording isn't present but implies
that a different warning subjectively satisfies the requirements
- this is nonsense.
[/quote]
Given that appealing via POPLA is clearly nothing more than a
box-ticking exercise, is the appellant in any way disadvantaged
by simply not entering into the charade and waiting for the
inevitable legal letters?
#Post#: 111008--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: jfollows Date: February 24, 2026, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
The courts want to see that every effort has been taken to avoid
cases going to court. Following the full formal appeal process
is necessary for this.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page