DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99407--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: November 23, 2025, 9:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you b789
I thought it would be worth asking to see what your thoughts
were. Appreciate the reality check.
I clicked on contact us link, I do see the upload but it does
state on there that they will not accept any appeals through
this form. Please see screenshot.
HTML https://ibb.co/NgZW5wjb
#Post#: 99408--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: November 23, 2025, 9:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Also where it states “Please note we do not accept appeals from
this form. Click here to lodge an
appeal” when I click on “here” (hidden link) it takes me to the
initial appeal where I said character count doesn’t show.
#Post#: 99410--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: b789
Date: November 23, 2025, 9:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just send it anyway. I is not going to make one iota of
difference to the outcome. If you are really feeling desperate
to send an appeal, post it first class and just get a free proof
of posting certificate from any post office.
I can't believe we are having all these posts about a poxy ECP
appeal which will be rejected anyway.
#Post#: 103025--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 18, 2025, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have received a response for rejection of internal appeals
today in my email.
Please find pdf attached in the link below.
HTML https://ibb.co/HT0xnNSR
#Post#: 103026--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: Brenda_R2
Date: December 18, 2025, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Entirely expected - don't panic :)
Just follow the advice you receive from other much more wise
posters than I and you won't pay a penny.
#Post#: 103027--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 18, 2025, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply #4:
--- Quote ---
> Initial appeal won't work but you may then be able to persuade
a moronic POPLA assessor that you are not liable as the Keeper.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 103824--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 26, 2025, 12:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I have 28 days to appeal to popla. Please can someone
help me with a copy and paste draft so I can log appeal with
popla.
#Post#: 103828--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: b789
Date: December 26, 2025, 1:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You actually have 33 days from the date of the initial appeal
rejection. DO a search of the forum for some recent POPLA
appeals and get a feel for how they should be put together and
show us what you have before submitting anything so we can
provide any necessary edits.
#Post#: 103857--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 27, 2025, 11:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Would someone be kind enough to draft popla appeal for me
please?
Not an excuse but I’ve genuinely been hospitalised with severe
diverticulitis. Second time hospital stay since last weekend,
got discharged Tuesday 23rd afternoon and back in on Wednesday
24th evening. My body not responding to treatment and they still
want to keep me in a few more days before I get discharged. I’m
so badly brain fogged I don’t know even know where to start.
Sorry to ask and thanks in advance if you can help.
#Post#: 103859--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: b789
Date: December 27, 2025, 12:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is one you can use but don't hold your breath for POPLA to
uphold it. Where this is going to be won is if they try to
litigate with a county court claim. I can assure you with
greater than 99.9% certainty that any claim made that is
defended with the template defence we provide, will eventually
either be struck out or discontinued.
--- Quote ---
> POPLA APPEAL – EURO CAR PARKS (ECP)
> PCN number: [insert]
> Vehicle registration: [insert]
> Date of event: 13/11/2025
> Location: Shell – Newport (1 Malpas Road, Newport, Wales, NP20
5PA)
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am appealing as
keeper only. The driver will not be identified.
>
> 1. No keeper liability – the Notice to Keeper is not compliant
with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 (including failure of 9(2)(e)(i))
> Euro Car Parks is attempting to hold the registered keeper
liable. That is only possible if, and only if, the Notice to
Keeper fully complies with all mandatory requirements of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). There
is no concept of “partial” or “substantial” compliance. If the
statutory conditions are not met, keeper liability does not
arise and liability (if any) remains only with the unknown
driver.
>
> This Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant. In particular, it
fails PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
>
> PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e) requires a Notice to Keeper to: (i)
state that the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver, and
(ii) invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
>
> The wording on this Notice does not “invite the keeper to pay”
the unpaid parking charges. Instead it tells the keeper that if
they were not the driver they should provide the driver’s full
name and address and pass the notice to the driver, and it
threatens that if the keeper does not provide the driver’s
details the operator may pursue the keeper. That is a request to
identify the driver (and a threat), not the statutory invitation
to the keeper to pay.
>
> Parliament deliberately used the phrase “invite the keeper to
pay” in PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). A notice that omits that mandatory
invitation and replaces it with a demand for driver details is
not compliant with PoFA. As a result, Euro Car Parks cannot rely
on PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the
registered keeper.
>
> POPLA is therefore invited to allow the appeal on this ground
alone.
>
> 2. No evidence of the required period of parking – time on
site is not parking and Parliament used the word “parking”
deliberately
>
> Even if POPLA were to consider the allegation on its merits
(which is not necessary given the absence of keeper liability),
the charge is not proven because Euro Car Parks has not
evidenced any “period of parking”.
>
> PoFA uses the term “period of parking”. Parliament did not use
“time on site”, “period on site”, “length of stay”, or similar.
This distinction matters. A vehicle can be on a site for a
period of time without being parked for that entire period.
>
> Euro Car Parks relies on ANPR camera timestamps. The Notice to
Keeper shows only an entry time (09:48:27) and an exit time
(10:49:13) and asserts “Time in car park: 1 hour(s) 1
minute(s)”. That is not a period of parking. It is merely the
time between two camera captures at the perimeter.
>
> ANPR entry/exit timestamps inherently include non-parking
time, including but not limited to time spent driving in,
locating a bay, manoeuvring, waiting due to congestion, reading
signage and deciding whether to stay, and time spent leaving and
queuing to exit. None of that is parking. Euro Car Parks has
produced no evidence identifying when the alleged parking period
started, when it ended, or whether the vehicle was parked
continuously at all.
>
> Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof of the actual period of
parking and evidence supporting it. If the operator’s evidence
is merely ANPR entry/exit times, then the statutory concept of a
“period of parking” has not been evidenced and the allegation is
not made out. POPLA cannot substitute “time on site” for “period
of parking” because Parliament did not.
>
> The charge must be cancelled because Euro Car Parks has not
proven the alleged breach.
>
> 3. Mandatory consideration period and grace period not
evidenced and not capable of being correctly applied when the
operator relies Euro Car Parks relies on ANPR to calculate
“length of stay”. That approach cannot properly measure parking
time. It also fails to show that mandatory time allowances were
applied.
>
> Rules require a consideration period at arrival to allow a
motorist to locate and read signage and decide whether to stay,
and a grace period at the end of parking to allow time to leave.
These are separate concepts and must be applied separately.
Where an operator relies on ANPR camera time, the operator must
demonstrate with a transparent calculation that any alleged
overstay remains after those required periods are accounted for,
and that the calculation is based on parking time rather than
camera time.
>
> Euro Car Parks has not produced any calculation or evidence
showing how it applied these required periods at this location
on the material date, nor how an alleged overstay is said to
exist after they are applied to the actual period of parking. In
the absence of such proof, the allegation is not established and
the charge must be cancelled.
>
> [b]4. Inadequate signage – no proof of prominent terms capable
of forming a contract
> The keeper disputes that the driver agreed to any contract
with Euro Car Parks. This is a petrol station environment with
mixed use, including use of the UPS Q Locker. Any contractual
terms seeking to impose a Ł100 charge must be prominently
displayed, clear, and readable before parking. The operator must
prove that the driver had a fair opportunity to read and
understand the terms, including the charge amount, prior to any
alleged contract.
>
> Euro Car Parks has not provided sufficient evidence of:
> [indent]a) the entrance signage as seen by a driver on
approach and entry
> b) the full wording of the terms, including how any maximum
stay is defined and when the timing starts/ends
> c) the prominence and legibility of the Ł100 charge on the
signage
> d) a dated site plan and photographs showing where signs are
positioned in relation to where vehicles can park and in
relation to the UPS locker area
> e) lighting conditions at the relevant time and whether
signage was readable[/indent]
>
> In the absence of strict proof that the terms were prominently
conveyed, no contract can be established and the charge must be
cancelled.
>
> 5. No proof of landowner authority – Euro Car Parks must
evidence every requirement in PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (f)
> Euro Car Parks has not produced definitive proof that it has
authority from the landowner (or a party with sufficient
interest in the land) to operate at this site, issue parking
charges, and pursue them.
>
> The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires written
authorisation and specifies what that authorisation must
evidence. Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof by producing
evidence that satisfies all requirements of PPSCoP section
14.1(a) to (f), including:
> [indent]a) the identity of the landowner or the party with
sufficient interest in the land
> b) the exact land to which the authorisation applies, with
clearly defined boundaries
> c) the start date, end date and duration of the authorisation
and confirmation it was in force on the material date
> d) the scope of the operator’s authority and what enforcement
activity is permitted
> e) the operator’s authority to issue charges and pursue them
in its own name
> f) any conditions, exemptions, or restrictions governing
enforcement[/indent]
>
> A generic witness statement, summary letter, or heavily
redacted agreement does not provide definitive proof of
authority. Unless Euro Car Parks produces evidence addressing
all of PPSCoP 14.1(a) to (f), POPLA must find that landowner
authority is not proven and the charge must be cancelled.
>
> 6. Failure to consider mitigation and vulnerability – breach
of PPSCoP Annex F
> Although POPLA may state it does not assess mitigation, the
operator is required to consider it. Annex F of the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice requires operators to act fairly
and to consider vulnerability and serious health circumstances
when making decisions on enforcement and appeals.
>
> Euro Car Parks was informed that the appellant has been
hospitalised with severe diverticulitis, including repeated
admissions and significant cognitive impairment affecting their
ability to deal with correspondence and deadlines. There is no
evidence that Euro Car Parks gave any meaningful or fair
consideration to those circumstances. Failure to do so is a
breach of PPSCoP Annex F and demonstrates unreasonable and
unfair operator conduct.
>
> POPLA is invited to take this breach into account when
assessing the overall propriety of Euro Car Parks’ enforcement.
>
> 7. ANPR reliability and data integrity not proven
> Euro Car Parks relies on ANPR. The operator must prove that
the ANPR system is accurate, properly maintained, correctly
synchronised, and that the images and timestamps are reliable.
>
> Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof of:
> [indent]a) maintenance, calibration and audit records for the
ANPR system for the period around the material date
> b) evidence that the system clock was accurate and
synchronised
> c) the full ANPR log for this vehicle on the material date to
rule out missing reads or double-dip errors
> d) evidence of appropriate manual checks before issuing the
charge[/indent]
>
> If Euro Car Parks cannot provide strict proof of reliability
and integrity, the allegation is not proven and the charge must
be cancelled.
>
> Conclusion
> Euro Car Parks cannot transfer liability to the keeper because
the Notice to Keeper fails PoFA, including a clear failure to
comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) (no statutory invitation for the
keeper to pay). In any event, Euro Car Parks has not proven a
“period of parking”, relying instead on ANPR camera timestamps
which only show time on site and cannot evidence parking. Euro
Car Parks has also failed to prove compliance with mandatory
time allowances, failed to prove adequate signage capable of
forming a contract, failed to provide definitive proof of
landowner authority as required by PPSCoP 14.1(a) to (f), failed
to consider vulnerability as required by PPSCoP Annex F, and
failed to prove ANPR reliability.
>
> I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and
directs Euro Car Parks to cancel the parking charge.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page