DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99772--------------------------------------------------
Euro Car Parks - Appeal rejected for overstaying max time
DIR By: Jppg
Date: November 25, 2025, 11:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry in advance about the formatting of this post, I have tried
to make it more legible, but can't seem to improve it.
I received a NtK for overstaying 90mins at Morrisons, Solihull.
I didn't identify the driver and sent off a generic reply
stating that I wouldn't be identifying the driver and hence
would not be paying.
Predictably the appeal was rejected:
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/3Rv9cw2q/ECP-appeal-refused-001.png
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/SxSTxkpP/ECP-Nt-K.png
Hope these images work, as I've never used this service before.
From reading other posts on the forum ECP appear to threaten
court action, regardless of any appeal to POPLA? But I was
wondering if the following (which I have copied from the forum)
is worth sending to them anyway:
[left][/left]"The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with
multiple mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), and therefore no
keeper liability can arise. The operator may only pursue the
driver for payment, not the registered keeper. The deficiencies
are as follows:
1. Failure to specify the period of parking (Paragraph 9(2)(a))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land
on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the
notice relates.”
This NtK contains no “period of parking.” It merely states that
a parking charge was issued for “failed to make a valid payment”
and refers to a date of issue. ANPR systems record entry and
exit times, but those are not synonymous with a period of
parking because they do not show when the vehicle was
stationary. The vehicle may have spent time queuing,
manoeuvring, or exiting. The Department for Transport’s
statutory guidance and persuasive appeal decisions (e.g. Brennan
v Premier Parking (2023)) make clear that a period of parking
must refer to an actual time parked, not merely camera
timestamps. This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with
9(2)(a).
2. Failure to properly invite the keeper to pay or name the
driver (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i))
PoFA requires the notice to “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, to provide the name of the driver and a current address
for service for the driver.”
The NtK does not invite the keeper to pay. Instead, it commands:
“If you were not the driver... please inform us of the name and
current postal address of the driver and pass this notice on to
them.”
This is a material deviation from the statutory wording.
Parliament intended the keeper to be given the option either to
pay or to name the driver. A command to “inform us” is not an
invitation to pay. The omission defeats one of PoFA’s key
procedural safeguards and invalidates keeper liability.
3. Defective warning of keeper liability (Paragraph 9(2)(f))
PoFA requires the warning to state that the keeper will become
liable if “after the period of 28 days beginning with the day
after that on which the notice is given” the charge remains
unpaid and the operator does not know the driver’s identity.
The NtK instead says liability will arise “after 28 days from
the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day
after the Date Issued).”
This re-wording changes the statutory time calculation. The Act
specifies that the 28-day period begins the day after the notice
is given, not “from the date issued.” The operator’s version
shortens the period by at least two days, thereby failing to
reproduce the mandatory wording prescribed by Parliament. This
departure is not a minor error: Schedule 4 imposes strict
conditions that must be met exactly before keeper liability can
be invoked.
4. Failure to unambiguously identify the creditor (Paragraph
9(2)(h))
PoFA requires the NtK to “identify the creditor and specify how
and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be
made.”
The NtK merely asserts that the land is “managed by Euro Car
Parks Ltd (the creditor).” It omits the full legal entity name,
company number and registered address. Without a full legal
identity, the keeper cannot know who the creditor actually is,
making the notice defective under 9(2)(h).
5. Ambiguous dating and delivery wording (Paragraphs 9(2)(i) and
9(4))
PoFA requires the notice to “specify the date on which the
notice is sent (given)” and defines when it is deemed “given.”
The NtK refers only to a “Date Issued” without confirming when
or how it was sent or delivered. This vagueness prevents a
reliable calculation of statutory deadlines and is another
failure to meet PoFA’s strict requirements.
Conclusion
PoFA Schedule 4 is a strict liability framework: every
requirement must be met before any right to recover a parking
charge from a vehicle’s keeper arises. The NtK in this case
fails to meet at least paragraphs 9(2)(a), 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f),
and is further undermined by non-compliance with 9(2)(h) and
9(2)(i). As a result, Britannia Parking cannot transfer
liability from the unknown driver to the keeper. The operator
may only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been
provided. The appeal should therefore be allowed.
In Addition
I require strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or
lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14
of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets
out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before
any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have
in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• The identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the
Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site."
I appreciate all the time and effort put into the forum and give
my thanks in advance for any advice given.
[/left]
#Post#: 99836--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Appeal rejected for overstaying max time
DIR By: Dave65
Date: November 26, 2025, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With ECP PPN`s the usual advice by b789 is you will not pay
anything to ECP.
It most likely will go all the way to a court claim first.
#Post#: 99839--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Appeal rejected for overstaying max time
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 26, 2025, 4:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I though Morrisons had a process for cancelling these?
See
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/eurocarparks-pcn-overstay-morrisons-shop-swansea/msg36495/#msg36495
--- Quote ---
> If you were customer of Morrisons, the first thing you do is
go to their customer service website and give them details of
the PCN so that they can get it cancelled. They have a specific
form for this:
>
>
HTML https://www.morrisons.com/help/form/contact-us/in-store-experience/car-parks/i-have-received-a-parking-charge-for-parking-in-your-car-park
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 99882--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Appeal rejected for overstaying max time
DIR By: b789
Date: November 26, 2025, 6:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can still try the Morrisons dedicated PCN form to get it
cancelled but you should really have done that before appealing.
You can try your POPLA appeal but don't be surprised if it is
not successful. Invariably all ECP claims are handled by DCB
Legal and I can assure you with greater then 99.9% certainty
that if defended, will either be struck out of discontinued just
before the claimant has to pay the £27 trial fee.
#Post#: 99892--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Appeal rejected for overstaying max time
DIR By: Jppg
Date: November 26, 2025, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the replies - I really appreciate you taking the
time.
I will send POPLA my appeal, just to keep them occupied - who
knows, they might learn something.........
I will return when DCB Legal turn up with their guff.
Once again, thanks for the replies.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1