DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 114891--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 31, 2026, 1:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Or, in the alternative, save the cost of the stamp by using
email.
#Post#: 114893--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: htatla
Date: March 31, 2026, 1:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Happy to write complaint by email although I don’t see it doing
much - if you guys can express the key points I need to raise
where they don’t follow the law. Else I will wait for the usual
letters
#Post#: 114894--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 31, 2026, 1:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA Complaint.
POPLA Code -
Assessor Name - Jamie Macrae.
Dear Lead Assessor,
I have recently received a response from POPLA regarding a PCN
issued by Euro Car Parks.
In the appeal I clearly pointed out that the NtK was not PoPA
compliant as it clearly fails to meet the requirements of PoFA
Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) / 9(2)(e)(i) / 9(2)(e)(ii).
Complaint Point.
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 his response, Jamie Macrae states;
"the PCN in question has the necessary information"
This is demonstrably false - all we need to do is examine the
NtK in order to reveal the missing components.
In his response, Jamie is very careful not to engage in any of
my evidence relating to the non-PoFA compliance - instead of
engaging with the evidence, the Assessor quickly skips past the
requirements of 9(2)(e) even though I specifically raised this
non-compliance as an appeal point.
This gives the impression that the Assessor recognised that the
wording was not present - if the wording was present then he
would have simply pointed it out in order to demonstrate
compliance?
In my opinion, the Assessor recognises that engagement with the
evidence would result in a demonstration of non-compliance
rather than the outcome he was keen to project.
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 the requirements of 9(2)(f) do not
satisfy the requirements of 9(2)(e) so please do not suggest
that wording required by 9(2)(f) loosely satisfy the
requirements of 9(2)(e).
PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 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 required statement wording AND invite the keeper to blah
blah blah OR blah blah blah.
The wording (from the legislation), "The notice must state", can
have no other interpretation - the notice must state this
wording to be compliant.
So, in order to be compliant, we are simply looking for the
prescribed 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 - with all due respect, this is not particularly
difficult;
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 - these
are the precise requirements of 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).
Once again, the two limbed invitation is not present - if the
two limbed invitation is present then please demonstrate that
fact and 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 Jamie has completely overlooked the
requirements of 9(2)(e)?
This is incredibly disappointing given that my evidence led him
directly to the non compliance - there really is no excuse.
I await your response with interest.
Best wishes,
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
#Post#: 114982--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: htatla
Date: March 31, 2026, 4:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks - Complaint sent via POPLA website! :)
#Post#: 118517--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: htatla
Date: May 13, 2026, 4:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DCBL Debt recovery letter received - do i need to do anything?
or ignore
#Post#: 118530--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks / Exceeded 3hr time / Peel Centre - Bracknell
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: May 13, 2026, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: htatla link ---
>
> DCBL Debt recovery letter received - do i need to do anything?
or ignore
>
--- End Quote ---
Ignore.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page