DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113126--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCar Parks PCN for three minute overstay
By: Albamc Date: March 13, 2026, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you! Very much appreciated.
Best
Al
#Post#: 113135--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCar Parks PCN for three minute overstay
By: InterCity125 Date: March 13, 2026, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=Sans-serif]Euro Car Parks POPLA Appeal
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question and, since
the driver is not known to the operator, I will be making my
representations purely as keeper.
I understand that, under 'POPLA Rules', I must set out my appeal
points and the parking operator must rebut them?
Non compliance with PoFA 2012.
The parking operators NtK fails to comply with PoFA and, as a
result, liability cannot be passed from driver to keeper.
In particular, the NtK fails to satisfy the legal requirements
of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and
9(2)(e)(ii).
This non compliance is immediately fatal to the operators
reliance on PoFA.
Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) sets out 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;
So, in order to establish compliance, we must examine the
operators NtK.
An examination of the legislation surrounding 9(2)(e) reveals
that compliance is achieved by the setting out of the statutory
wording immediately followed by a two limbed 'invitation to the
keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'nominate
another driver'.
So, to make this really easy, in the first instance, we are
looking for the specific statutory wording set out in 9(2)(e)
itself.
The legislation specifies that 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"
An examination of the operators NtK reveals that the statutory
wording is not present.
This is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA.
However, to demonstrate my appeal point further, the NtK is then
required to present a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper'
which 'invites the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking
charges' 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 the notice on to
the driver'
Please again note the exact wording of the statute;
That 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— blah blah blah
I have capitalised the word AND for good reason since the word
AND demonstrates that compliance is only achieved if the
operator is able to demonstrate that both legs of the AND logic
have been satisfied.
Please note (and I apologise for sounding like a Junior School
Teacher) that a 'warning to the keeper' is not 'an invitation to
the keeper' - The words 'warn' and 'invite' have very different
meanings and it is important that the correct wording is
understood and applied when examining the NtK since other terms
of the legislation require that 'a warning' be set out on the
NtK - I understand that some POPLA assessors have become
confused on this issue in the past and have inadvertently
applied the reversed meanings - to be clear, a warning is not an
invite.
So, back to the two limbed invitation to the keeper - when the
NtK is examined the two limbed invitation is not present.
Nor is there an 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid
charges' - this is also the specific requirement of 9(2)(e)(i).
So, as I am sure you can see, there are multiple compliance
issues on the operators NtK.
So,
APPEAL POINT ONE - That the operators NtK does not contain the
legally required mandatory wording required by 9(2)(e), namely;
"the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a
current address for service for the driver" - I therefore ask
the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by
supplying a copy of the relevant NTK, to the POPLA Assessor,
with an orange rectangle around the wording, "the creditor does
not know both the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver" - for total clarity, please do not
include any other notations on the provided NtK - just the
orange rectangle.
APPEAL POINT TWO - That, subsequent to the statutory wording
required by 9(2)(e), the operators NtK does not set out the
mandatory two legged invitation to the keeper to either pay the
unpaid parking charges or nominate another driver - Once again,
I ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by
supplying a copy of the NtK which clearly sets out, in an orange
rectangle, the two legged legal invitation which the legislation
requires in order to be compliant.
APPEAL POINT THREE - That, in accordance with 9(2)(e) and
subsequently 9(2)(e)(i), the NtK must 'invite the keeper to pay
the unpaid parking charges' - Once I again I ask the operator to
prove that the NtK complies with this requirement - please
demonstrate the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid
charges' - Please do not confuse this 'invitation' with any
'warning to keeper' contained in the requirements of 9(2)(f).
If both the Parking Operator and the POPLA Assessor could use my
numbered points then this would be very useful and should ensure
that all appeal points are correctly addressed.
APPEAL POINT FOUR - That I believe that adequate time was
purchased for the parking event which is causing this dispute -
The Car Park in question is quite an awkward and large
multistorey - the alleged overstay is 11 minutes and, when the
minimum grace period is considered, the contractual dispute
amounts to 1 minute - the operator's own evidence shows that the
driver entered at 22.22 and left at 19.33 the following day -
the 'time on site' was 21 hours and 11 minutes - 21 hours were
paid for but 22 hours would have cost no more.
Many thanks and best wishes,
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx[/font]
#Post#: 113504--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCar Parks PCN for three minute overstay
By: Albamc Date: March 17, 2026, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Once again, thank you very much for this. I am removing the bit
about the complex multi-storey as it isn't, but otherwise am
submitting verbatim.
Just one other query - I'm not sure what grounds to appeal to
POPLA on? I have said 'I did not exceed the free period' and
'Other'. Is that ok?
Best
Al
#Post#: 113514--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCar Parks PCN for three minute overstay
By: DWMB2 Date: March 17, 2026, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Given one of your points is about keeper liability, and relies
on you not saying who was driving, choosing an option thsy says
"I did ___" would be unwise. Just choose "Other", the text of
your appeal lays out your reasons.
#Post#: 113523--------------------------------------------------
Re: EuroCar Parks PCN for three minute overstay
By: Albamc Date: March 17, 2026, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good point! And thank you. 👍
Appeal submitted with last paragraph edited as follows:
APPEAL POINT FOUR - That I believe that adequate time was
purchased for the parking event which is causing this dispute -
according to Just Park's own information entering the car park
early is acceptable if the car is not actually parked in the
space. So, the alleged overstay is in fact three minutes. Even
considering a minimum grace period of ten minutes, the
contractual dispute amounts to 1 minute - the operator's own
evidence shows that the driver entered at 22.22 and left at
19.33 the following day - the 'time on site' was 21 hours and 11
minutes - 21 hours were paid for but 22 hours would have cost no
more. Additionally, EuroCar Parks state in their correspondence
that £12:80 was paid to JustPark when it was in fact £14.29.
(Please see attached receipt.)
_________
Thank you all again and watch this space!
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page