DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113088--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: Beachway
Date: March 12, 2026, 11:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jumping in on this, the pcn "does not contain the mandatory
wording", mandatory is mandatory. It seems like theyve closed
ranks. The assesor was wrong and so is the complaints assesor.
You simply cannot interpret the act to suit yourself. As it
stands, the complaint was never going to overturn the original
judgement anyway, Im interested to see if ECP and their cronies
attempt to test this nonsense in court, now theyve seen this and
now think theyve got some kind of 'justification to proceed'.
#Post#: 113092--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 13, 2026, 2:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply to POPLA with the following;
Obviously add your details so they know where it's come from.
Dear Lead Assessor,
I have received your response regarding the above complaint.
Unfortunately, your response contains some kind of formatting
error!
I am sure this an accident.
In your response you attempt to highlight, in GREEN, the
operator's compliance with PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e).
Unfortunately, you inadvertently copy and paste (in GREEN) the
requirements of 9(2)(f)'warning to keeper' instead of 9(2)(e)
mandatory wording followed by the two limbed 'invitation to the
keeper'.
This in not the first time that a POPLA assessor has done this -
I highlighted this issue in my complaint!
Ironically, you actually include the specific mandatory wording,
word for word, from 9(2)(f) in your quoted GREEN wording when my
complaint was clearly about the missing wording and legal choice
which should be presented by 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and
9(2)(e)(ii).
Once again, to be clear, I COMPLETELY ACCEPT THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF 9(2)(f) ARE MET BY THE OPERATORS NtK AND THERE
IS NO NEED TO FURTHER REFERENCE THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THAT TERM.
From my perspective, your response is bizarre since I have never
actually, at any stage, raised the non compliance with 9(2)(f)
as either an appeal point or a complaint - with all due respect,
POPLA Assessors appear to exhibit behaviour where they attempt
to move troublesome complaints on to other issues when appeal
points are awkward to rebut - your quoted text, which is GREEN,
should actually be BLUE since it obviously relates to 9(2)(f)
rather than the appeal / complaint point regarding non
compliance with 9(2)(e).
In this instance, your quoted GREEN text (which you say relates
to 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4) is taken directly from the operator's
NtK which, the operator themselves specifically state (on the
physical NtK), is given, "under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4"
- why are you continually referencing 9(2)(f) 'warnings to the
keeper' when the complaint is about non-compliance with 9(2)(e)
and the 'invitation to the keeper' - a 'warning to the keeper'
and an 'invitation to the keeper' are totally different actions
(and, of course, wordings) on the part of the parking operator
and one cannot be either be substituted or implied to be the
other - English language dictates that a 'warning' states
something factual whereas an 'invitation' asks something of
somebody - your GREEN highlighted text is simply a series of
warnings and an invitation is never presented in your
highlighted text.
It is extremely clear that all the wording in both BLUE and
GREEN all relates to the warnings which 9(2)(f) require - If you
read each sentence in your GREEN section you will see that each
sentence is a 'warning to the keeper' of one kind or another -
it is acknowledged that the operator has added a couple of
additional 'warnings' which are not mandatory but this appears
reasonable in nature and does not diminish compliance with
9(2)(f).
I note with interest that the rebuttal sentence, "the Notice to
Keeper makes it clear that the keeper may be pursued for any
parking charge amount that remains unpaid", provided by Rachael
Hankinson (in her assessment) is now firmly in your BLUE section
meaning that she did provide incorrect rebuttal evidence in my
initial appeal.
Let's move this back to 9(2)(e) since this was both my appeal
point and my complaint;
Once again, taken at face value, you deliberately move the
complaint point FROM 9(2)(e) across to 9(2)(f) - a simple
examination of the legislation shows that the stated
requirements are totally different and the requirements of
9(2)(f) cannot possibly satisfy the requirements of 9(2)(e) in
the manner which you 'accidently' imply with your highlighted
text.
Your GREEN highlighted text (in order to demonstrate parking
operator compliance with 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4) states the
following;
"...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."
Unfortunately, even you must admit, your highlighted GREEN text
fails to highlight either the legally required MANDATORY WORDING
or the TWO LIMBED LEGAL CHOICE which must be presented directly,
via a written invitation in the NtK, to the vehicle keeper under
9(2)(e) - please read the requirements of 9(2)(e) and then
explain this GREEN text further as the quoted GREEN text is
completely disconnected from the requirements of 9(2)(e) and
bears absolutely zero resemblance to the required wording or
legal choice which 9(2)(e) clearly sets out - as already
mentioned, the highlighted GREEN text is stated by the operator
as being given under 9(2)(f) and not 9(2)(e).
You say that your GREEN text, in your opinion, "relates to
9(2)(e)" - that is fine and that is your opinion but, that does
not mean that the GREEN text, which you suggest relates to
9(2)(e), automatically satisfies the terms of 9(2)(e) until that
text is 'tested' directly with the statutory requirements of the
legislation - instead of testing it, you simply jump to a
massive conclusion - this gives the impression that testing it
would be 'inconvenient' to your proposed outcome?
The legislation relating to 9(2)(e) actually appears to be
completely different to your highlighted GREEN text and actually
states the following 9(2)(e);
THE NOTICE MUST 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;
Clearly your quoted GREEN text contains none of the information
required by the term - and neither is there a two limbed legal
choice offered to the keeper.
So, to demonstrate your point, please point out, using your
GREEN text if you wish, the required mandatory wording (on the
operators NtK) which sets out the sentence which THE NOTICE MUST
STATE, "The creditor does not know both the name of the driver
and a current address for service for the driver" - I'll help
you out - the mandatory wording isn't present and your GREEN
highlighted text does not contain the specific sentence (or
anything even close) which the legislation says the notice MUST
STATE in order to be compliant - this is immediately fatal to
the operators reliance on PoFA.
Furthermore, following on from that, again using your GREEN text
if the moment takes you, please highlight, from the operators
NtK, the required TWO LIMBED invitation (the two legs separated
by the mandatory word 'or') to the keeper to either 'pay the
unpaid parking charges' or 'provide alternative driver details'
- I'll help you out - the wording / two limbed choice isn't
present - if it was present then it has to be immediately after
the mandatory sentence.
Once again, notice the precise mandatory requirements;
That THE NOTICE MUST 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— blah blah blah
I have highlighted the word AND for a reason; that in order to
be compliant, the operator must set out the statutory wording
AND invite the keeper to pay the unpaid charges or nominate
another driver - all three requirement of 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i)
and 9(2)(e)(ii) must be met.
It is notable that your response never deals with the
requirements of 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) - at no point do you
address the fact that the two limbed legal choice is missing -
without stating the bleeding obvious, anyone can see that the
two limbed choice is clearly not contained in your GREEN text -
once again, you avoid this because the situation is
'inconvenient' to your proposed outcome.
To be honest, in your reply, you are clearly trying to loosely
imply that some of the requirements of 9(2)(e) are somehow
'covered off' by the wording of 9(2)(f) - this is not acceptable
and even you must see that the mandatory wording is missing, as
is the two limbed legal choice which 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii)
requires - if you disagree then please present the required
mandatory wording and the subsequent two limbed legal choice in
your reply - as you already know, neither is present on the
operators NtK and, as such, the NtK is non compliant with PoFA
since the requirements are extremely specific and legal very
tight.
Furthermore, the fact that your reply suggests that the
operator's NtK satisfies 9(2)(f) first, and then, highly
subjectively, satisfies 9(2)(e) secondly, with some loose keeper
warnings, is a clear demonstration of the utter chaos which
surrounds the operators NtK - the fact that an assessor is
having to go to such lengths to defend the operators position
should alert POPLA to the problems which exist with this NtK.
The fact is that POPLA have deliberately introduced subjectivity
into a scenario which the legislation makes objective - the
notice must state the mandatory wording required by 9(2)(e) -
the notice does not state the required mandatory wording - the
notice is therefore not compliant - it's as simple as that!
Now please address the matters at hand and point out the
required mandatory wording and subsequent two limbed legal
choice which 9(2)(e) requires?
I await your response and some further GREEN highlighting!
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxx
#Post#: 113094--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 13, 2026, 3:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Beachway link ---
>
> Jumping in on this, the pcn "does not contain the mandatory
wording", mandatory is mandatory. It seems like theyve closed
ranks. The assesor was wrong and so is the complaints assesor.
You simply cannot interpret the act to suit yourself. As it
stands, the complaint was never going to overturn the original
judgement anyway, Im interested to see if ECP and their cronies
attempt to test this nonsense in court, now theyve seen this and
now think theyve got some kind of 'justification to proceed'.
>
--- End Quote ---
You are 100% correct.
But this is what you often find with POPLA.
You can present the strongest evidence but the assessor's seem
to decide, in advance, if an appeal is going to be successful.
In this instance, as you point out, this is a really clear one
but look at the lengths that two Assessors have gone to in order
to try and persuade the appellant that the notice is compliant.
Generally the behaviour is always the same - if you present a
difficult appeal point the assessor will either;
1) Rebut the point outright but avoid all clarity on how the
decision was reached - clarity is the assessors enemy where
appeal points are strong - clarity is therefore avoided at all
costs since clarity will only ever favour the appellant and that
is what the assessor is trying to avoid.
2) Ignore the appeal point totally when rebuttal is impossible -
carefully skip over the point and move to the next point.
3) Materially alter the basis of an appellants appeal point in
order to make the appeal point fit with available rebuttal
evidence.
4) Exclude appellant evidence when that evidence disqualifies
the assessors proposed outcome.
In this case both assessors have fumbled in order to try and
provide rebuttal evidence.
In each instance the two assessors have provided differing
evidence in their rebuttal.
In this case the second assessor has (inadvertently)
acknowledged that the first assessor provided invalid rebuttal
evidence.
The second assessor then attempts to 'force fit' the wording of
a different term into the mandatory requirements of 9(2)(e) - it
is clear as day that his proposed compliance is totally
irrelevant to 9(2)(e).
The assessor then tip-toes around the precise requirements
because any further comments would start to provide the dreaded
'clarity' at a time when the assessor is desperately trying to
avoid any clarity.
#Post#: 113241--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: Sarf London
Date: March 14, 2026, 8:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's the original email reply, converted to a PDF......
Please let me know if your commenst still stand as I will be
going back to them with your response if that's the case....
HTML https://ibb.co/Fkc9Ywr5
#Post#: 113244--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 14, 2026, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes - please send.
The Assessor sets out the legislation and then provides no
evidence that the legislation has been satisfied.
The Assessor is BS-ing and everyone knows it including him /
her.
#Post#: 113446--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: Sarf London
Date: March 16, 2026, 2:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sent.
#Post#: 114409--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: Sarf London
Date: March 25, 2026, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your email received 16 March 2026
I note my colleague has previously responded to your complaint
and confirmed POPLA’s position.
I note further they confirmed that this response marks the end
of our complaints procedure and it will not be appropriate for
POPLA to respond further.
For the avoidance of doubt, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal
has now ended. Any further correspondence received in relation
to this issue will be noted on your case, but not responded to.
========================================================================
In other words, they bottled it twice and think that's the end
of the game.
I now want to push ECP for an early court date. Let's get this
over with.
#Post#: 114481--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: Beachway
Date: March 26, 2026, 10:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please keep us updated. Im going through the system too.
#Post#: 114727--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 29, 2026, 1:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ECP and their henchmen will threaten court etc but they never go
through with it.
Nothing to worry about.
What this case demonstrates is how bent POPLA are and they
should be trusted by nobody.
We have a number of other cases regarding ECP and non-compliant
NtKs so let's see what happens with those.
POPLA are now in a very difficult situation as I believe we are
putting more pressure on them with regard to ECP NtKs - sooner
or later they will have to crack.
#Post#: 114734--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
DIR By: ixxy
Date: March 29, 2026, 4:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> POPLA are now in a very difficult situation as I believe we
are putting more pressure on them with regard to ECP NtKs -
sooner or later they will have to crack.
>
--- End Quote ---
Or maybe sooner or later we need to realise appealing on the
basis of perceived POFA wording issues isnt going to win
appeals. As DWMB2 recently pointed out, posters here are
volunteers, not professional qualified advisers, going up
against people backed up with lawyers who do this for a living.
There are plenty of examples of inappropriately issued PCNs that
are worth defending, like it or not many PCNs are issued
correctly, doesn't mean payment can't be avoided but suggesting
there are solid grounds for defence isn't really helping people
coming here looking for advice.
On a separate note Bhpcn is still waiting for your single point
POPLA appeal you promised at the start of the week, get that
through POPLA successfully and the game changes.
[QUOTE]Posted by InterCity125 on 03 Mar, 2026 08:21
Post actions
For the record, I'm quietly confident that we can word a single
appeal point POPLA appeal which they will find very difficult to
rebut.[/Quote]
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page