DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 114621--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro car park - Fullwell cross Leisure centre.
DIR By: Hashim
Date: March 27, 2026, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought you cannot challenge and respond to their decision.
Hashim
#Post#: 114622--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro car park - Fullwell cross Leisure centre.
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 27, 2026, 10:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We can make a complaint in the hope that they admit an error.
The operator has provided no rebuttal evidence to show that the
car park is not Council owned and therefore there is a clear
error by the Assessor.
#Post#: 114627--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro car park - Fullwell cross Leisure centre.
DIR By: Hashim
Date: March 27, 2026, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I will take advice from the experts, so yes.
Also regarding the next stage, What happens now?
Hashim
#Post#: 114628--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro car park - Fullwell cross Leisure centre.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 27, 2026, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ECP will engage DCBL to send threatening letters which can be
ignored.
ECP will engage DCB Legal who will issue a Letter of Claim.
Come back when this happens, because it requires a response.
DCB Legal will issue a court claim, but will likely discontinue
if it is defended. They do this because they claim a judgement
in default from people who do not defend.
Search the forum for more details.
#Post#: 114638--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro car park - Fullwell cross Leisure centre.
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 27, 2026, 11:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA Complaint.
POPLA Code -
Assessor Name - Lyndsey Howgate.
I have recently received a response from your colleague
regarding a parking appeal.
In her reply Lyndsey Howgate makes two serious errors.
Complaint Point One.
In my appeal I clearly pointed out that the land at Fullwell
Cross Leisure Centre was owned by Redbridge Borough Council and,
as such, it is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA keeper
liability.
The land is in fact council owned and being leased, long term,
to Vision-Redbridge Culture and Leisure which is a wholly
council owned project.
This lease does not alter the determination of relevant land
since the council still own it.
I made all this clear in my initial appeal and again in my
comments on the operator's evidence.
The first thing to note is that the operator did not attempt to
rebut this appeal point, they don't even address it - I pointed
this out in my comments.
In her response Lyndsey Howgate states the following;
"I am satisfied that the land is private land and not council
owned." - This appears to be an error on the part of the
Assessor.
Secondly, the operator has provided no rebuttal evidence
relating to who actually OWNS then land - although the parking
operators agreement is signed by Vision Redbridge (The Client),
the legislation allows an 'appointed agent' to act on behalf of
the landowner - in this case the appointed agent is Vision
Redbridge - The fact that an appointed agent can sign such
documents means that the operators agreement is incapable of
providing rebuttal evidence relating to the true ownership of
the land - in any circumstance, it could be the leaseholder who
signs rather than the landowner.
In this instance the car park is 'provided' by Redbridge Borough
Council even if they do not control it - this makes it non
relevant land under PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 3(1)(b).
Complaint Point Two.
Failure to correctly assess compliance with PoFA Schedule 4
Paragraph 9(2)(e).
In my appeal I made it crystal clear that the NtK was not PoFA
complaint.
In her response, Lyndsey Howgate states;
"the PCN in question has the necessary information" - I note
immediately that the Assessor fails to engage with my evidence
point - she could simply demonstrate compliance by setting out
the wording which I suggest is missing - this gives the clear
impression that the Assessor is looking to quickly 'skip over'
an awkward point which is not rebuttable via demonstration -
engaging with the evidence would only lead towards an admission
of non compliance.
The assertion that the NtK has all the "necessary information"
is demonstratable false - all we need to do is examine the NtK.
TO BE CLEAR - This complaint point specifically relates to non
compliance with paragraph 9(2)(e) and, as such, there is no need
for you to demonstrate compliance with other paragraphs - please
stick firmly to the issue of compliance with 9(2)(e).
PLEASE ALSO NOTE - that compliance with 9(2)(e) is not achieved
by quoting text from 9(2)(f) and loosely implying relevance.
9(2)(e) specifies the following;
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;
I have capitalised certain words deliberately - notice in
particular that the word AND requires that the notice set out
the wording AND invite the keeper to blah blah blah OR blah blah
blah.
So, in order to be compliant, we are looking for a sentence of
mandatory text immediately followed by a two limbed legal
invitation to the keeper with the two limbs separated by the
Boolean operator "OR".
So, be my guest.
Please specifically point out, on the parking operators NtK, the
sentence of mandatory wording 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" - please DO NOT skip over
this request - go ahead and point out the sentence?
Here's a clue - the wording is not present.
Following on from that, please point out the required mandatory
two limbed invitation to the keeper to either pay the unpaid
charges or provide alternative driver details? Don't forget the
Boolean operator (OR) which must separate the two limbs!
Once again, the two limbed invitation is not present - if the
two limbed invitation is present then please specifically point
them out rather than skipping over my request.
As I am sure you can see, the operators NtK is NOT actually
compliant is it? And Lyndsey has completely overlooked the
requirements of 9(2)(e)?
This is incredibly disappointing given that my evidence led her
directly to the non compliance - there really is no excuse.
I await your response with interest.
Best wishes,
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
#Post#: 116003--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro car park - Fullwell cross Leisure centre.
DIR By: Hashim
Date: April 15, 2026, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Received a response from POPLA for the complaint that we
submitted:
Dear Hashim Oomerjee,
Your complaint about POPLA decision 2410086112
Thank you for your contact outlining the reasons why you’re
unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor
in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I’m
responsible for investigating complaints.
It’s worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our
website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal
service and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree
with our decision.
Having reviewed your correspondence, I’ve noted the crux of your
complaint is that you are unhappy with the outcome reached in
the assessment of your appeal. I’ve noted your two complaints
and will address them separately:
You’re unhappy with the assessor’s determination that the car
park is private land as you believe it’s council owned and
therefore not relevant land for purposes of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012.
Within their rationale, the assessor stated:
“In this case, a copy of the agreement between Visio-Redbridge
Culture & Leisure Agreement has been provided dated 17 January
2022 confirming that the landowner has given authority for Euro
Car Parks LTD to carry out parking enforcement for breaches of
the advertised terms and conditions. This document does not have
an expiry date, and I have received no further evidence that
would suggest the above contract has been terminated and
therefore is still valid. A copy of this document can be
located in the case file provided by the parking operator and if
the appellant wishes to obtain any additional details, they may
wish to contact the landowner directly. I am satisfied that the
land is private land and not council owned.”
Though you have claimed that it’s not private land, I must
advise that POPLA can only base decisions on the evidence
provided. In the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, the
assessor was satisfied that the site is private land and
therefore relevant land.
You’re unhappy with the assessor’s claim that the notice to
keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Within their response, the appellant explained:
“I am aware 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 due to the drivers details not being provided. Section 9
states the PCN must be issued within 14 days. In this case I can
see that PCN was issued within the relevant period and requested
driver details to be provided.”
Having reviewed the notice to keeper, I'm satisfied that it is
in fact compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Overall, having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I’m
satisfied the decision reached is correct based on the evidence
presented.
In closing, I’m sorry that your experience of using our service
has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your
appeal has now ended and this response concludes our complaints
process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further
on this matter and all further correspondence will be noted on
your case, but not responded to.
You are of course, free to pursue this matter further through
other means, such as the Courts. For independent advice, you may
wish to contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or
call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).
Yours sincerely,
Alex Roby
POPLA Complaints Team
#Post#: 116029--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro car park - Fullwell cross Leisure centre.
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: April 16, 2026, 1:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Once again Alex Roby skips over the specific complaint points
because they are unable to demonstrate compliance.
#Post#: 121823--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro car park - Fullwell cross Leisure centre.
DIR By: Hashim
Date: June 15, 2026, 6:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon
I have today received a letter from 'Debt Recovery Plus'
HTML https://ibb.co/7dNSMCCQ
What now?????
#Post#: 121825--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro car park - Fullwell cross Leisure centre.
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 15, 2026, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> ECP will engage DCBL to send threatening letters which can be
ignored.
> ECP will engage DCB Legal who will issue a Letter of Claim.
> Come back when this happens, because it requires a response.
> DCB Legal will issue a court claim, but will likely
discontinue if it is defended. They do this because they claim a
judgement in default from people who do not defend.
>
> Search the forum for more details.
>
--- End Quote ---
This
#Post#: 121909--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro car park - Fullwell cross Leisure centre.
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 16, 2026, 1:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nothing to do at the moment.
Just play the game.
That's all they are doing.
We are waiting for the Letter Before Claim (or similar wording).
This is all expected.
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page