DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106484--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: htatla
Date: January 19, 2026, 5:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can I get advice for wording for the POPLA appeal ? What am I
asking them Vs ECP appeal ?
#Post#: 109559--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: htatla
Date: February 12, 2026, 4:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA have reviewed my appeal and are asking for my comments for
ECPs Provided Evidence
I have less than 7 days to provide my "comments"
Please can you guys advise what i do here?
#Post#: 109562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 12, 2026, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post up the ECP evidence.
It's highly likely that their original NtK wasn't PoFA
compliant.
#Post#: 109673--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: htatla
Date: February 13, 2026, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks - See ECPs Evidence Doc - Click here
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hjwr4u1ayp6ozhpj494a7/The-Peel-Centre-Bracknell_2410176109_Redacted.pdf?rlkey=hurxc0i4prrmbrfunuxl8zmgz&dl=0
#Post#: 109681--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 13, 2026, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Euro Car Parks evidence.
Once again the operator asserts that the NtK is PoFA compliant
when it is not.
In order to be compliant the NtK must contain specific text and
legal choices as specified by Schedule 4 of PoFA.
In this instance, the requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph
9(2)(e) are not satisfied by the operators NtK.
To be compliant, the requirements of 9(2)(e) can only be met if
a specific paragraph is placed in the NtK which should read as
follows;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 required paragraph is clearly missing from the operators
NtK.
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 legal
choice which 9(2)(e) requires.
The Euro Car Parks NtK never states the 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 presents the two limbed legal
invitation which para. 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) requires.
If the required mandatory wording and subsequent legal choice is
present on the NtK then, I would ask that either Euro Car Parks
or the POPLA assessor point out the required statutory wording?
In order to rely on PoFA, all requirements of Schedule 4
Paragraph 9(2) must be met - the wording is not subjective, it
is 100% objective in nature.
The missing wording is immediately fatal to the operators case.
#Post#: 109686--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 13, 2026, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, their “evidence” is just an untrue statement.
#Post#: 114799--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: htatla
Date: March 30, 2026, 3:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The POPLA Appeal was rejected by email. Details Below
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: xx xx
Assessor summary of operator case:
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to
overstaying the maximum period allowed.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds
of appeal.
• The parking operator’s Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet
all of The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requirements,
so the keeper cannot be held liable. Partial compliance is not
enough, there will be no admission who was driving, and no
interference or assumptions can be drawn, the parking operator
has replied on contract law allegations of breach against the
driver only.
• The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, not pursued under a poor interpretation of the
law of agency, the NTK in question can only hold the driver
liable.
• The parking operator has no realistic prospect of success in
pursuing the charge or the registered keeper in County Court,
and the PCN should therefore be cancelled. A judge would be
likely to dismiss the case as an abuse of process.
• The signage at the site states it is for customers only, for
providing an offer of parking under the terms, it is not proven
by the parking operator that the registered keeper was a
customer of the Peel Centre, if the registered keeper was not a
customer, no contract with the parking operator can be formed.
• If no contract was formed, the parking operator can only have
a potential position of trespass; however, the parking operator
has no claim this invoice due to two reasons, they have not
authority to pursue the invoice in its own name unless it has
the specific landholder rights to do so, they would like the
parking operator to produce evidence of this right, at court if
need be.
• There was no loss to either the parking operator or landowner,
where the parking operator may seek damages from the registered
keeper.
• The signage inadequate, they dispute it is prominently
displayed for drivers to read and understand the parking terms,
compared to the large wording regarding maximum stay three
hours.
• The meaning on the term customer, is not defined or made clear
on the signage and is objectively verifiable.
• They doubt the full parking terms and conditions were properly
visible and brought to the attention of the drivers. After
reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant
reiterates their grounds of appeal and expands on their grounds
of appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and
independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by
both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly
by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car
park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an
appeal.
The parking operator’s signage at the site states: “WELCOME TO
THE PEEL CENTRE CUSTOMERS ONLY…FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE…MAXIMUM
STAY 3 HOURS…”. The images of the vehicle captured upon entry
and exit confirm the time the vehicle was on this land for three
hours 26 minutes, exceeding the allowable time by 26 minutes.
I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to
determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. 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 and is [RK
Name]’s liability for the PCN I will be considering as the
keeper of the vehicle.
This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the
British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking
Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private
Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022,
and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into
force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that
the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating
to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of
this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9
of the BPA Code of Practice.
This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1
February 2024. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors
how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice
setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.1 of
the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that
make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. Section
19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that
clearly set out the terms.
Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car
park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to
park, such as those mentioned above. The parking operator has
provided a series of the site, along with a map with positions
of signs highlighted. As the appellant has failed to provide any
photos of the site for consideration I can see from the evidence
pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important
part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on
notice that terms and conditions applied.
Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around
this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in
contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear
and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. I am
satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the
site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that
the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise
themselves with the terms and conditions.
It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and
conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if
you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the
appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the
appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them.
The motorist became bound by the terms and conditions of the
site by parking, waiting, or staying at the location for three
hours 26 minutes. As the appellant has failed to provide any
photos of the site for consideration, I must accept the evidence
to be a true reflection of the site. As the car park has a
maximum allowed time of three hours, which is applicable to all
motorists, it falls upon the motorist to make reasonable
accommodations and depart from the premises before surpassing
the allotted time.
The signage at the site is clear that exceeding the time limit,
regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By
exceeding the time limit, the motorist has accepted the
potential consequence of incurring a PCN. After considering the
evidence from both parties, the motorist exceeded the allowable
time at the site and therefore did not comply with the terms and
conditions of the site.
As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued
correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Although the appellant
has commented on the parking operator's evidence, I have not
identified any details that significantly affect my evaluation
of the PCN. Any questions relating to payment of the parking
charge should be directed to the operator.
END OF POPLA RESPONSE
------------------------------------
Appreciate your support for the next steps
KR
#Post#: 114816--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 30, 2026, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Assessor has once again misrepresented compliance with PoFA.
We can write a complaint.
Who is the Assessor?
#Post#: 114839--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: htatla
Date: March 30, 2026, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Assessor Name: Jamie Macrae
#Post#: 114847--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: ixxy
Date: March 30, 2026, 12:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> The Assessor has once again misrepresented compliance with
PoFA.
>
--- End Quote ---
In your opinion, would appear POPLA don't agree.
OP you can complain to POPLA but I'd save the cost of the stamp
personally and sit back saving your energy for when the letter
of claim arrives.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page