DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107353--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 26, 2026, 1:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, got it to load.
So the NtK is not PoFA compliant - end of.
You could comment with the following;
The conditions of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) are not
met - the critically required wording is obviously not present
in the NtK.
The wording of PoFA makes it clear that total compliance with
Para 9(2) is required in order for PoFA to be relied upon. Para
9(1) reinforces that point beyond any doubt.
The conditions set out in Schedule 4 of PoFA are not met simply
by the parking operator stating that they are - close
examination of the NtK is required.
I highlighted the NtK failings in my original appeal - the
operator simply skips over this point and never demonstrates
compliance - their further comments simply demonstrate that they
do not understand the requirements of para. 9(2).
The NtK provided in the operator evidence contains a number of
highlighted areas (in order to seemingly challenge my appeal
evidence) but the highlighting still fails to highlight the
required wording - no amount of highlighting will make the
required wording magically appear.
I challenge the operator / POPLA assessor to specifically show
where the required wording is on the operators NtK?
In order to be compliant, PoFA specifies that the notice 'must'
state all of the information required in para. 9(2) in order for
the parking operator to rely on PoFA - at no point does the
issued notice to keeper 'invite the keeper to pay the unpaid
parking charges' - the absence of this required wording is
immediately fatal to the operators case - therefore the operator
cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper and, as
such, the keeper cannot be pursued as the operator is
suggesting.
By way of help, in order to satisfy the requirements of para.
9(2)(e), the wording on the NtK from the operator MUST contain
wording along the lines of the following;
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 (Para 9(2)(e)(i) requirement but not present on the
Euro Car Parks NtK)
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
(Para 9(2)(e)(ii) requirement)
The wording of Paragraph 9 (of Schedule 4) means that partial
compliance with Para 9(2) is not sufficient to move liability
onto the keeper using PoFA as the notice 'must' contain all the
stated information from 9(2)(a)to(i). The wording used (must)
means that total compliance is required with each section and
subsection.
Also note that certain sections of para. 9(2) require that the
information is provided in a specific manner - that 9(2)(e)
requires that the information is presented in such a manner as
the keeper is given a specific legal choice between paying the
parking charges themselves OR providing the driver details -
critically, this legal choice is never set out on the operators
NtK as the correct wording from one leg of that choice is never
stated.
It also appears that the parking operator needs to reconsider
their relationship with their solicitors in that respect.
I have also examined the operators signage layout.
The PCN shows the driver entering the forecourt (from the main
road) by making a shallow turn to the left - more of a taper
than a turn in fact - due to the layout, most drivers would
enter in this manner.
The signage on entry from this direction is wholly inadequate
since there is no required 'entry signage' which faces oncoming
traffic - this does not appear to meet the minimum requirements
set out in The Code of Practice document.
#Post#: 107358--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 26, 2026, 3:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> So the NtK is not PoFA compliant - end of.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'd be amazed if the assessor agreed. As of yet, I'm also not
sure we've seen the 9(2)(e)(ii) point tested in court either, so
I'm not sure it's quite right to describe it as "end of". It
might therefore be wise to challenge some other points in ECP's
response.
Do they provide a map of the site anywhere? Their landowner
contract refers to one, but if they've not included one in the
evidence pack that's an issue.
#Post#: 107371--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 26, 2026, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've modified the wording slightly and added a section which
shows complaint wording which I feel adds weight to the appeal.
I cannot open the entire evidence pack so I cannot tell if a map
is present.
#Post#: 107390--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: January 26, 2026, 7:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks inner.
I can confirm dwmb2 there is a map in the evidence pack. I been
trying to deal with imgbb since yesterday but I’m still having
issues. I uploaded 35 page pdf but the link only shows 18 pages.
Here is a link that’s only valid for 24 hours before deletion
that’s shows the last 18 pages with maps and signage.
HTML https://jumpshare.com/s/JC3MfbPkeKM8Zv70029V
#Post#: 107392--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 26, 2026, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The images show your vehicle turning left into the car park -
this would have been the driver's view on the way in: Google
Street View
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/oTVTbXPDezSA3nFVA
Their own signage plan support this and shows that the entrance
signage is angled such that it would not be particularly
prominent to a vehicle turning left. I would point this out.
#Post#: 107412--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: January 26, 2026, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I noted this point early on but didn’t mention it as I thought
it would be disregarded.
You take a left into shell and drive forward to the back passing
fuel pumps on your right. At the back there is plenty of signage
not accessible on google street view. That’s where the courier
collection boxes are.
#Post#: 107418--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 26, 2026, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> The images show your vehicle turning left into the car park -
this would have been the driver's view on the way in: Google
Street View
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/oTVTbXPDezSA3nFVA
>
> Their own signage plan support this and shows that the
entrance signage is angled such that it would not be
particularly prominent to a vehicle turning left. I would point
this out.
>
--- End Quote ---
Good spot - I have added that to the appeal document.
#Post#: 112710--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: March 10, 2026, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all.
As expected I have appeal
Denied by popla. Copy pasted below.
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Gayle Stanton
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because
the driver parked on the site for longer than the maximum stay.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided the following grounds of appeal which
I have summarised for the purposes of assessment: • No keeper
liability – the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012
Schedule 4 (including failure of 9(2)(e)(i)). • 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. • Inadequate
signage – no proof of prominent terms capable of forming a
contract. • No proof of landowner authority – Euro Car Parks
must evidence every requirement in PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to
(f). • Failure to consider mitigation and vulnerability – breach
of PPSCoP Annex F. • ANPR reliability and data integrity not
proven. In the comments the appellant has provided the following
: The conditions of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) are not
met - the critically required wording is obviously not present
in the NtK. The PCN shows the driver entering the forecourt
(from the main road) by making a shallow turn to the left - more
of a taper than a turn in fact - due to the layout, most drivers
would enter in this manner. The signage on entry from this
direction is wholly inadequate since there is no required 'entry
signage' which faces oncoming traffic - this does not appear to
meet the minimum requirements set out in The Code of Practice
document. The appellant has provided a document detailing their
grounds of appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has
issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the site.
The appellant has advised that the Notice to Keeper is not PoFA
compliant. 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. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the
appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking
Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. I will
therefore be assessing keeper liability. The operator has
provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the
appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the
relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is
compliant in all aspects. The Private Parking Sector Single Code
of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators
are required to comply with. The appellant states that they were
not allowed a consideration or grace period. Section 5.1 of the
Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow
a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the
requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide
whether or not to park. In this case the recommended
consideration period according to Table B.1 is five minutes. The
Code also includes the following note: NOTE 2: The consideration
period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B
where there is evidence that the driver has, accepted the terms
and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read
them) which may for example be evidenced by the driver parking
the vehicle and leaving the premises, paying the applicable
parking tariff, or remaining on the controlled land for more
than 5 minutes. As the vehicle remained on the site for one hour
and one minute this was exceeded and the driver became liable to
comply with the terms. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of
Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in
addition to the parking period. However, the Code advises that
grace periods are not applicable to short stay areas where the
parking of a vehicle is allowed for a limited period not greater
than 30 minutes, such as drop off and pick up zones. In this
case as the maximum stay allowed is 15 minutes which is a short
stay car park, drivers are not entitled to a grace period. The
appellant has advised that there was no entrance signs and
Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there
must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the
entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is
permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section
3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must
display, including whether public parking is available. Its
design must also comply with the standard format as described in
Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of
vehicles approaching the car park. The operator has provided
evidence of the entrance signs on the site and these advise that
the maximum stay permitted is 15 minutes. These signs also
advise that motorists can see the signage on the site for
further terms and conditions. Due to this I am satisfied that
the entrance signs comply with Section 3.1.2 of The Code.
Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the
requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The
signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have
the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their
vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous,
using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible.
The operator has provided evidence of the signage on the site
and this advises that parking is limited to 15 minutes and that
failing to comply will result in a £100 PCN being issued. I am
satisfied that the signage on the site complies with Section
3.1.3 of The Code. The appellant says they were unaware of the
terms and conditions. However, a driver does not need to have
read the terms to accept them—only to have been given the
opportunity to do so. It is the driver’s responsibility to
locate and understand the terms before parking. Based on the
photographic evidence and site map, I am satisfied that the
driver would have passed at least one sign and therefore had
this opportunity. The appellant states that there is no evidence
of landowner authority and 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 operator has provided a
memorandum of understanding and I am satisfied that the operator
has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does
not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may
contain commercially sensitive information. The appellant states
that the operator has not considered any mitigating
circumstances. The Appeals Charter is a statement on how certain
circumstances should be handled by the parking operator. This
details when a parking charge should be cancelled, and when a
parking charge should be reduced to £20, when an appeal is based
on an error or mitigating circumstances. In this case the
appellant has not provided any explanations as to why the
operator or POPLA should consider their mitigating
circumstances. The site operates Automatic Number Plate
Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and
exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in
the car park. This data captured is then compared with the
online transaction record, and therefore if any vehicle has
overstayed the maximum stay of 15 minutes, a PCN is issued. The
data provided by the operator shows that the vehicle had been
parked on the site for one hour and one minute on the day in
quesiton. ANPR technology is generally reliable, though POPLA
sometimes receives appeals alleging ANPR errors. In such cases,
POPLA considers whether any evidence casts doubt on the accuracy
of the system. The operator must first prove the PCN was
correctly issued, usually by providing ANPR images. If they do
so, the burden then shifts to the motorist to provide evidence
that questions the ANPR’s reliability. This may include an
account of events, but physical evidence—such as receipts
showing the motorist was elsewhere—is usually more persuasive.
The POPLA assessor ultimately decides whether the evidence
demonstrates an ANPR inaccuracy. In this case the appellant has
not provided any evidence to cast doubt on the operator’s ANPR
evidence and therefore I can only consider this evidence in this
case. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
because the driver parked on the site for longer than 15 minutes
and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions.
Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking
charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the
appeal. This means the appellant is required to pay the full
parking charge to the operator.
#Post#: 112726--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 10, 2026, 12:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No problem - we can come up with a complaint - the NtK is 100%
not compliant.
Give me a day or two.
#Post#: 112744--------------------------------------------------
Re: EURO CAR PARK OVERSTAY SHELL PETROL STATION
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 10, 2026, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Fill in the missing details and submit to POPLA as a complaint
to info@popla.co.uk
POPLA Complaint - Procedural failure by the Assessor to
correctly identify non PoFA compliance in a Euro Car Parks NtK.
POPLA Code -
POPLA Assessor - Gayle Stanton.
Dear Lead Assessor,
Background;
I have recently received an appeal response from POPLA regarding
a Parking Charge Notice issued by Euro Car Parks.
In my appeal I specifically demonstrated that the issued NtK was
not compliant with all the required aspects of PoFA Schedule 4
Paragraph 9(2).
This complaint relates purely to the inability of the Assessor
to correctly apply the legislation when required.
In her assessment Gayle Stanton incorrectly establishes keeper
liability when keeper liability cannot possibly occur due to
multiple compliance issues.
Clear procedural error;
In simple terms, the Euro Car Parks NtK is not compliant with
PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e).
As you will see in my original appeal, I clearly lead the
Assessor, very directly, to the exact failings of the operators
NtK.
I think it is fair to say that the Assessor could be left in
absolutely no doubt what those failing were.
In her appeal response, Gayle Stanton specifical mentions non
compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(e) in the appeal summary at the
start of her response.
It is therefore unclear how such a clear and obvious mistake can
be made.
In her response, the Assessor explains the basics of PoFA and
then states, " I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the
relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is
compliant in all aspects."
This statement is demonstrably false since an examination of the
NtK clearly reveals the missing elements which would be required
to make it 'compliant in all aspects'.
In the first instance, I would draw your attention to the fact
that the Assessor flatly refuses to engage with the precise
evidence provided by myself in respect of the requirements of
9(2)(e) - instead, she simply makes a blanket statement which
never addresses the specific evidence.
In my appeal I specifically invited the Assessor to demonstrate
where the requirements of 9(2)(e) were met within the operators
NtK - if the Assessor believed the wording to have been present
then she could have easily copied this wording, verbatim, from
the operators NtK in order to prove compliance with the required
section.
It is my opinion that the Assessor refuses to do this since it
is obvious that the required wording is not present - the
Assessor cannot present the evidence which is not there?
I note with interest that the Assessor does engage in the more
subjective elements of my appeal but deliberately and, in my
opinion, purposefully, avoids the very specific and objective
element which deals with PoFA compliance - because PoFA
compliance is totally objective, any engagement with the issue
raised (in terms of the precise requirements) would only lead to
more clarity on the issue and that, in turn, would lead to a
situation where the Assessor would be unable to demonstrate that
the NtK was compliant - as a result the Assessor is forced into
non engagement with the points raised because they are not
rebuttable since the NtK does not contain the required wording
and subsequent legal choice which 9(2)(e) requires.
Correct procedure;
Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) states the following;
The notice MUST
(e)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;
So, in order to establish compliance with 9(2)(e) we must
examine the precise wording of the operators NtK - the word AND
is deliberately emboldened by myself in order to draw your
attention to the precise requirements - that the NtK must set
out the prescribed wording AND then invite the keeper to choose
between the two options which should be presented to the keeper
at that precise point.
So, in the case of the mandatory requirements of 9(2)(e),
9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) we are looking for a section of
prescribed mandatory wording immediately followed by the
presentation of a two limbed legal choice which must be offered
to the vehicle keeper (and not the driver).
This should therefore be something along the lines of the
following;
==============================================
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
- if the required paragraph is present then please feel free to
point it out to me?
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
immediately followed by the legal choice which 9(2)(e) /
9(2)(e)(i) / 9(2)(ii) 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 it is immediately clear that;
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 choice.
The Euro Car Parks NtK never presents the two limbed legal
invitation which para. 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) demands.
Summary;
This, to be fair, is a very clear and obvious oversight by the
Assessor given that she was lead directly to the NtK PoFA
failings and that those failings were so clearly illustrated -
this appears to demonstrate that Assessors are not adequately
trained to deal with PoFA compliance even when they are
presented with the evidence in a very clear fashion.
I await, with interest, the outcome of your enquiries.
Best wishes,
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page