DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 105447--------------------------------------------------
ECP Parking PCN – Permit did not cover date and time of parking
– Cleveland Street - Wolverhampton
By: terminator241 Date: January 11, 2026, 2:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone, this is the first time I'm appealing a PCN so
would appreciate some kind advice, just want to make sure this
is a winnable appeal and if POPLA reject whether I should keep
escalating :)
I as the registered keeper received this PCN. The driver parked
in the car park. It took 3 minutes to park and go to the machine
and pay for a permit. The driver spent too long having dinner in
a nearby restaurant and left 10 minutes after the permit expiry
time.
I sent an internal appeal that was rejected (I was expecting
this). I stated that:
1. the contravention stated "The P&D/permit purchased did not
cover the date and time of parking" and since they said "and",
they can't have a valid appeal as the date was covered, just not
the time allegedly
2. The 13-min excess falls within the BPA Code of Practice's
minimum 10-min grace period (13.4: "reasonable period to leave
after contract ends") plus entry consideration (13.2).
I have now been asked to appeal to POPLA. Shall I carry down
this route with the above points or any suggestions of further
information to include? If POPLA reject the appeal shall I
escalate it further (not sure what that would entail)?
Front page of PCN:
HTML https://freeimage.hos
t/i/fvuOtj4
Back page of PCN:
HTML https://freeimage.hos
t/i/fvuepDv
Car park layout (I don't have irl images):
HTML https://freeimage.hos
t/i/fvukQLl
Many thanks in advance for your help!
#Post#: 105465--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Parking PCN – Permit did not cover date and time of park
ing – Cleveland Street - Wolverhampton
By: jfollows Date: January 12, 2026, 3:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you search the forum for other ECP cases, for example
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/parking-pcn-alleged-overstay-esso-car-park-rainham-rm13-8dp/msg103697/#msg103697.
You will see that an appeal will fail, and it’s likely that
POPLA will not uphold an appeal, after all you exceeded the
grace period by 16 seconds under one analysis. And, yes, this
can not be the time you actually parked for, but they don’t care
about such details, they just want your money.
So expect appeals to fail, court paperwork to be issued and DCB
Legal will eventually discontinue rather than pay the court fee
and the cost of attending your local court in person.
#Post#: 105593--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Parking PCN – Permit did not cover date and time of park
ing – Cleveland Street - Wolverhampton
By: terminator241 Date: January 12, 2026, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the advice, I've submitted an appeal to POPLA and
we'll see what happens
#Post#: 105605--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Parking PCN – Permit did not cover date and time of park
ing – Cleveland Street - Wolverhampton
By: DWMB2 Date: January 12, 2026, 4:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=terminator241 link=topic=9460.msg105593#msg105593
date=1768253082]
I've submitted an appeal to POPLA and we'll see what happens
[/quote]
It might have been sensible to show us that before submitting -
we can't offer advice on something that has already been sent.
Alas, what's done is done. What did it say?
#Post#: 105618--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Parking PCN – Permit did not cover date and time of park
ing – Cleveland Street - Wolverhampton
By: terminator241 Date: January 12, 2026, 6:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeah oops haha
To whom it concerns,
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing as
keeper only. I do not admit to being the driver, and the
operator has not established keeper liability under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). I contend that no breach
occurred and the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) must be cancelled
for the following reasons:
1. Failure to apply the mandatory grace period (BPA Code of
Practice breach – primary ground)

The alleged overstay is only 10 minutes and 16 seconds after the
paid-for 1-hour period expired. Euro Car Parks (a BPA member)
must comply with the BPA Code of Practice, which requires a
minimum 10-minute grace period at the end of the parking period
to allow reasonable time to leave the site (clause 13.4
equivalent: “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to
leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended,
before you take enforcement action” – specified as a minimum of
10 minutes in paid sites).
Moreover, the parking ticket/permit (proof of payment for 1
hour) does not specify seconds in the expiry time — only minutes
are shown. This means the precise end of the paid period cannot
be determined to the second, so the actual excess could
reasonably be as low as 9 minutes and 43 seconds (or less), well
within the BPA Code of Practice’s minimum 10-minute grace period
at the end of paid parking.
Additionally, a reasonable consideration period applies on entry
(clause 13.2) for finding a space, reading signs, and paying.
ANPR timestamps only show site entry/exit, not actual parked
time or delays in exiting (e.g., queues, manoeuvring, traffic).
The operator has not evidenced that they applied any grace
period, nor proven that the excess was beyond a reasonable
interpretation of the minimum 10 minutes (the 16-second alleged
overrun is negligible/de minimis and falls “in the region of”
the required grace, as accepted in similar POPLA decisions for
short excesses).
No breach occurred after applying the Code’s grace provisions.
The charge is invalid due to non-compliance.
2. No evidence of the period of parking (ANPR timestamps
insufficient and unproven accuracy)

The operator relies solely on ANPR entry/exit times.
These do not prove the actual period parked in a bay, nor
distinguish from time spent driving within the site, queuing to
pay/exit, or other non-parking activity. The operator must prove
(on the balance of probabilities) a breach beyond grace — they
have failed to do so. POPLA should require evidence of true
parked duration; without it, the charge cannot stand.
Furthermore, ANPR systems can be inaccurate due to factors such
as remote server delays, clock desynchronisation, or lack of
regular checks. The BPA Code of Practice requires operators to
ensure ANPR equipment is maintained in good working order,
including regular calibration, adjustment, and synchronisation
with the timer that stamps images/photos.
I require the operator to provide detailed records of the dates
and times when the cameras at this site were checked, adjusted,
calibrated, synchronised (with the timer stamping the evidence),
and generally maintained to ensure accuracy of dates, times, and
seconds-level precision for the relevant period/date. Without
this evidence, the ANPR timestamps cannot be relied upon,
particularly for a minor alleged overrun of 16 seconds (which
could be affected by even small calibration tolerances). This is
especially relevant given precedents highlighting ANPR flaws
(e.g., cases where lack of sync proof led to unreliable
evidence).
3. Keeper liability not established (POFA 2012
non-compliance)

The operator has not proven full compliance with Schedule 4 of
POFA 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper. I require strict
proof of a fully compliant Notice to Keeper (e.g., exact wording
on periods, warnings, and timelines). If any element is
missing/inaccurate, no keeper liability exists.
4. Inadequate signage / unclear terms (no contract
formed)

The operator must prove prominent, clear signage at the entrance
and throughout the site (BPA Code requirements), with key terms
(tariff, time limits, grace application, £100 charge) legible
from a driver’s perspective before parking. I require the
operator to provide dated, contextual photos (not
generic/close-ups) showing visibility, lighting, and placement.
If terms were not properly brought to attention, no contract was
formed.
5. No landowner authority / standing to pursue charges

The operator must have contemporaneous written authority
from the landowner to issue PCNs and pursue charges/litigation
in their own name. I require production of an unredacted
agreement (or chain of authority) confirming site boundary,
permissions, and dates. Without this, the operator lacks
standing.
Summary
The primary issue is the operator’s failure to apply the
mandatory BPA minimum 10-minute grace period — the alleged 10
minutes and 16 seconds excess is within any reasonable
application of the Code, especially given the ticket lacks
second precision (possible under 10 mins) and ANPR limitations.
The charge is disproportionate, non-compliant, and
unenforceable. I request POPLA allow this appeal and direct Euro
Car Parks to cancel the PCN.
If rejected, please explain fully how grace was applied and why
the alleged minor overrun (16 seconds) justifies enforcement,
especially considering the overrun could reasonably be as low as
9 minutes and 43 seconds or less.
Evidence attached:
• Copy of parking ticket/permit (showing no seconds in expiry
time)
#Post#: 108056--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Parking PCN – Permit did not cover date and time of park
ing – Cleveland Street - Wolverhampton
By: terminator241 Date: January 30, 2026, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just fyi POPLA have informed me that the operator have cancelled
the ticket :)
*****************************************************