DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 111009--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: InterCity125 Date: February 24, 2026, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Brenda_R2 link=topic=8666.msg111005#msg111005
date=1771951741]
[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?
[/quote]
I believe that over time we have been successfully tweaking
appeals regarding non PoFA compliance and, hopefully, we might
be getting nearer a point where POPLA have to correctly assess
PCNs.
This is the first time I've seen an assessor imply that
mandatory wording isn't present - the problem is that she simply
bends the rules and determines that the wording required by
Paragraph 9(2)(f) also satisfies the legal requirements of
9(2)(e) - of course that is nonsense since 9(2)(e) requires
mandatory wording followed by the two limbed choice which is
also specified.
#Post#: 111015--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: Brenda_R2 Date: February 24, 2026, 11:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is one Rachel Hankinson on Linkedin with a bio that
indicates that she is an "Appeals Assessor at Ombudsman
Services".
Except if you click on "Ombudsman Services" you get redirected
to "Energy Ombudsman (Formerly Ombudsman Services) - If you’re
looking to raise a dispute with your energy supplier please
visit our website."
So who are POPLA actually using to assess appeals?
Because it would seem they're not using anyone with a working
knowledge of the private parking industry?
#Post#: 111063--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: InterCity125 Date: February 25, 2026, 1:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1617]Sarf London[/member]
With your permission, I would be happy to write you a POPLA
complaint?
Whilst this won't overturn the decision, it could provide you
with a response where they admit an error - you can subsequently
use this if the operator pursues you.
#Post#: 111119--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: Sarf London Date: February 25, 2026, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes Please Intercity.
#Post#: 111151--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: InterCity125 Date: February 25, 2026, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=Times New Roman]POPLA Complaint - Procedural error and
mishandling of PCN Appeal.
Original POPLA Code -
Assessor Name Rachel Hankinson
Dear Lead Assessor,
I recently received an appeal response from POPLA regarding a
PCN issued by Euro Car Parks (ECP).
The response contains a clear procedural error - namely; that
the assessor incorrectly establishes keeper liability under PoFA
when the NtK clearly omits elements of required mandatory
information.
My initial POPLA appeal centred on a number of appeal points but
this complaint purely relates to the assessor's incorrect
assertion of keeper liability.
In my appeal, I clearly raised the issue of the operators non
compliant NtK and, in particular, the omission of both the
mandatory wording and the subsequent two limbed legal choice
which the operator is required to present to the keeper by
Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e).
In very simple terms, as I am sure you will be aware, Paragraph
9(2)(e) requires that the NtK state a prescribed sentence of
mandatory wording immediately followed by a direct invitation to
the vehicle keeper to either pay the unpaid parking charges
themselves or to provide alternative driver details.
If you examine the NtK from ECP you will see that the notice
contains no such prescribed wording and, subsequently, no two
limbed mandatory legal choice is ever presented to the keeper in
the manner set out in the Schedule.
It is clear that my POPLA appeal document adequately drew the
assessor's attention to this specific point.
However, the assessor's comments appear to demonstrate that she
is not adequately familiar with the precise requirements of PoFA
Keeper Liability - instead of working through the matter
objectively, examining the precise requirements of PoFA term by
term, she appears to make a highly subjective judgement which,
unfortunately, bears absolutely no resemblance to the actual
objective requirements of the relevant legislation.
In her appeal response she states, "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."
In simple terms, and based on what she has written, the assessor
appears to broadly understand my appeal point, namely; it's
clearly an NtK with no mandatory wording and no invitation to
keeper to pay the unpaid charges or nominate another driver.
This appeal point would obviously constitute a clear failure to
meet the requirement of Paragraph 9(2)(e) - however, and rather
oddly, the assessor then goes on to say, "However, the Notice to
Keeper makes it clear that the keeper may be pursued for any
parking charge amount that remains unpaid."
This is a procedural error since the wording referred to by
Rachael Hankinson (in her reasoning) is actually the mandatory
wording requirement of Paragraph 9(2)(f), and not that of
9(2)(e).
Critically, at no point does the assessor actually refer to the
precise requirements of 9(2)(e) - if the required wording (and
legal choice) was present on the NtK then she would surely point
this out rather than trying to vaguely imply compliance by
referencing the mandatory wording from a different term, namely;
that of 9(2)(f)?
In essence, the assessor appears to try and 'dig the parking
operator out of a hole' by stating that the mandatory wording of
9(2)(f) somehow satisfies both the legally required mandatory
wording and two limbed choice required by 9(2)(e) - to be blunt,
this is legally illiterate.
(I would also point out the following; that if her stated
wording is deemed to satisfy the requirements of 9(2)(e) then
the requirements of 9(2)(f) would now be left unsatisfied by the
NtK since each term of 9(2) requires its own wording.)
The assessor then moves on with her findings and never attempts
to deal with the missing information / choices required by
9(2)(e) - this gives the impression that the assessor is
deliberately avoiding both clarity and accruacy on the issue
since such clarity and accruacy would leave her in a position
where she had to admit that the NtK was not compliant.
To be absolutely clear at this point; nothing in my POPLA appeal
ever suggested that the ECP NtK failed to comply with 9(2)(f) -
I acknowledge that the mandatory 'warning to the keeper'
required by 9(2)(f) (and referred to by Rachael Hankinson when
rebutting my appeal point) is indeed present in the operators
NtK - however, the presence of this wording does not somehow
negate the operators requirement to additionally satisfy the
terms of 9(2)(e) in order to produce a PoFA compliant NtK.
The absence of the required mandatory wording and two limbed
legal choice is fatal to the parking operators reliance on PoFA
to establish keeper liability.
The terms of PoFA are very legally tight and total compliance
with Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a to i) are required in order to
invoke PoFA keeper liability - as I am sure you are aware, there
is no such thing as partial compliance - 9(2) states that "The
notice MUST" contain the listed requirements.
For the purposes of total clarity;
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).
The Euro Car Parks NtK never 'invites the keeper to pay the
unpaid parking charges'.
The Euro Car Parks NtK never uses the required mandatory word
"or" to connect the two required limbs of the legal choices.
The Euro Car Parks NtK never presents the two limbed legal
invitation which para. 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) requires.
The wording (warning to the keeper) mentioned by Rachael
Hankinson is irrelevant to the requirements of 9(2)(e) and,
instead, is actually a clear reference to the wording
requirements 9(2)(f).
It is also important to note, that the warning given in 9(2)(f)
is made in clear reference to the operators ability to transfer
liability for the charges, onto the keeper, after a period of 28
days.
The requirement of 9(2)(e) is completely different as it deals
specifically with an invitation to the keeper (to pay or
nominate) which is made, by the operator, within that initial 28
day period - at that point in time, the legal liability for the
charge actually lies with the unknown driver and not with the
keeper - as such, the legislation requires that operator invites
the keeper to pay (or nominate) regardless of the fact that they
may not actually be legally liable at that precise point in
time.
I look forward to your carefully considered response in this
matter.
Best wishes,
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx.[/font]
#Post#: 111220--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: Sarf London Date: February 26, 2026, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sent
Thank you.
#Post#: 112023--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: Sarf London Date: March 4, 2026, 7:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your contact.
We are sorry that you are unhappy with our service and would
like to reassure you that we take all complaints seriously.
The information has been escalated to our complaints team and
the details will be reviewed.
You should receive a response within 21 days depending on the
complexity of the information provided.
#Post#: 112027--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: InterCity125 Date: March 4, 2026, 7:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Magic.
Should be interesting.
#Post#: 113045--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: Sarf London Date: March 12, 2026, 1:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the crux of your complaint is that you are unhappy with
the outcome reached in the assessment of your appeal. You say
the assessor has omitted elements of the required mandatory
wording of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. You
raised that the operator’s PCN was not compliant and there was
the omission of the subsequent two limbed legal choice required
under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (e). You say if the notice is
examined it will be noticed that this was never presented. You
say the assessor makes a procedural error as her wording
referenced is that as discussed in 9 (2) (f) and not (e).
I have looked at the PCN following your complaint. I can see
that you raised:
PoFA 2012 in e and f states:
(Quote of (e) and (F) from the ACT inserted here)
I have highlighted the pertinent section of the PCN which
discusses PoFA 2012 requirements.
•
•
BLUE:
You are advised that if after the period of 28 days beginning
the day after that on which the notice is given (which os
presumed to be the second working day after the Date issued) the
parkign charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both
the name and address of the driver, we have the right to recover
any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.....
GREEN:
...applicable cobnditions under Schedule 4 of the Act. If you do
not provide the correct address for service of the driver, pass
the notice on to the driver, we will pursue you for any parking
Charge amount that remains outstanding. Should you identify
someone who denies they were the driver, we will pursue you for
any Parking Charge amount that remains outstanding.
The assessor stated:
“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.”
I am satisfied that the assessor is correct. Whilst the assessor
has not touched upon the relevant sections, I am satisfied that
it met the mandatory requirements of PoFA 2012 and therefore,
the registered keeper can be held liable for the PCN.
Having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I am
satisfied the decision reached is appropriate based on the
evidence presented.
#Post#: 113068--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
By: InterCity125 Date: March 12, 2026, 3:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Could you upload the quote which is redacted?
This really is ridiculous.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page