Euro Car Parks - POPLA appeal help

Vehicle Registration Number MYCAR
PCN Reference MYPCN
POPLACODE: MYPOPLACODE
Issued by Euro Car Parks Limited


As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice Euro Car Parks issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:


1) Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012
2) No Landowner Authority
3) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance
4) The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator
5) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.



1) Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012

Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Euro Car Parks’ Notice to Keeper failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA:

(i) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), the Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related. It merely provided the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. There is no evidence of a period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities.


(ii) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

BOTH the above prescribed requirements must be stated in the NTK and they were not.


(iii) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper did not 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: ... to 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;

The NTK fails to include all of the above wording, as prescribed under the statute.


(iv) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(f), this NTK fails in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to:

''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and...the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;''


(v) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(h), the Notice to Keeper does not identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;


(vi) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

A date of preparing or batching of NTKs ready for mailing later by iMail is often stated by BPA AOS members, misleadingly, as a 'date of issue' or similar. This fails the requirement to state the date SENT or GIVEN, neither of which are defined as the date the document was drawn up by back office staff, several days before iMail actually put the NTK in the post via Royal Mail.

Consequently, Euro Car Parks has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

If Euro Car Parks should try to suggest that there is any method outwith the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

URLLINK|transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greenslade|URLLINK

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.”

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: 4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;


*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.''

The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the multiple flaws in the NTK. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.

This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator. in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report:

''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''




2) No landowner Authority:

I question Euro Car Parks Limited’s authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Euro Car Parks Limited to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent who has no more title than the operator). I question Euro Car Parks Limited’s legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in neither their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.

They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Euro Car Parks Limited is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP. I suggest that Euro Car Parks Limited are certainly not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in a free of charge enormous car park and that issuing 'PCNs' by post is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

“The written authorization must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

I put Euro Car Parks Limited to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

This is vital, especially in view of the signs where it is clear on close scrutiny, is that someone (identity not established and I ask the operator for evidence in this regard) has changed the time limit to 4.5 hours at some point. So, I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one - does not reflect the altered signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance with 7.3 (in particular, point b and d, above).

It is eminently possible that the contract states only the original free parking period (whatever that was) and therefore a sticker over a sign is unsupported by the will of the landowner in any contract. This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers after just 4.5 hours in a car park where they have only allowed this agent to issue PCNs after a completely different period.

I require Euro Car Parks Limited to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of the CoP. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.



3) BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance - photo evidence.

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp on the photographs nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as any particular location at all).

The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the photographs. The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images, I require Euro Car Parks Limited to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.



4) The minimum grace period was not allowed by the Operator
British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 – 13.4 states:
13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a
driver who enters your car park but decides not to park,
to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’
in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the
driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period
at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 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. If the location is one where
parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.
Also, under the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 6, Oct 2015, states that if drivers
"…decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract." (18.5).

And that when using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR),
"…your system must allow drivers who have not paid the fee to leave a site within a reasonable period that allows for the conditions and environment of that parking site. This grace period should be long enough to allow motorists to leave without having their vehicle registration mark processed for a parking charge." (30.2)

The above states that a time no less than 20 minutes should be allowed for first, entry and consideration of the contract, and second, leaving the property. The times stated on the NTK show only the time of entry and exit (13:01 and 13:07 respectively). These do not indicate the time in which the vehicle parked. The charges laid out in the signage are only for the time that the vehicle was parked. The times stated on the NTK, however, are clear evidence that the vehicle entered the car park and left again within the grace period specified by the BPA CoP to protect consumers in the time that they need to find a parking space, consider the contract, and leave the car park again.

In this case, the 16 minutes was used to find a parking space, consider the terms of the contract, and decline the offer. The mention of a minimum of 10 minutes is exactly this, a minimum. The time needed to complete all these actions are dependent on a number of wildly varying factors, including traffic, lighting and parking conditions, driver’s eyesight and driving ability and mental faculties. For this reason, a minimum amount is specified, but the maximum time allowed for these tasks to be completed are not. Further to this, the signage makes no indication of how long a driver may be on the site before a parking penalty will be charged. This leaves the driver uncertain to the terms of the contract, which means that there was no full acceptance of the contract to be breached.



5) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

Euro Car Parks’ evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out. It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic if they in fact offer a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking and which is when the clock in fact starts. The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronized to the pay and display machine clock nor even to relate to the same parking event.

As keeper I cannot discount that the driver may have driven in, realised it was pay and display then driven out. The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website;
URLLINK|britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR-work|URLLINK


The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Additionally under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require Euro Car Parks to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of my vehicle entering and leaving the car park at specific times (not shown within the photographic evidence), it is vital that Euro Car Parks produces evidence in response to these points.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Euro Car Parks to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof to the contrary.



I have made my detailed submission to show how the applicable law (POFA) and the BPA Code of Practice undoubtedly supports my appeal, which I submit should now be determined in my favour.

Yours sincerely,

Vehicle Registration Number MYCAR
PCN Reference MYPCN
POPLACODE: MYPOPLACODE
Issued by Euro Car Parks Limited


As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice Euro Car Parks issued against it. I would like to have the parking charge notice cancelled based on the following grounds:


1) Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012
2) No Landowner Authority
3) BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance
4) The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator
5) No genuine pre-estimate of loss – case can be differentiated from ParkingEye-v-Beavis
6) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.
7) Lack of legible signage - no contract with driver



1) Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012

Although Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) gives a creditor the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper, this right is strictly subject to statutory conditions being met by the operator, without which the right to 'keeper liability' does not exist.

I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Euro Car Parks’ Notice to Keeper failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA:

(i) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), the Notice to Keeper did not 'specify the period of parking' to which it related. It merely provided the dates and times when the vehicle allegedly entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. There is no evidence of a period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed on the balance of probabilities.


(ii) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

BOTH the above prescribed requirements must be stated in the NTK and they were not.


(iii) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper did not 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: ... to 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;

The NTK fails to include all of the above wording, as prescribed under the statute.


(iv) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(f), this NTK fails in the prescribed requirement - in exact words and with the correct deadline - to:

''warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— ...the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and...the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;''


(v) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(h), the Notice to Keeper does not identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;


(vi) Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(i) the Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

A date of preparing or batching of NTKs ready for mailing later by iMail is often stated by BPA AOS members, misleadingly, as a 'date of issue' or similar. This fails the requirement to state the date SENT or GIVEN, neither of which are defined as the date the document was drawn up by back office staff, several days before iMail actually put the NTK in the post via Royal Mail.

Consequently, Euro Car Parks has forfeited its right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

If Euro Car Parks should try to suggest that there is any method outwith the prescribed statute (POFA 2012) whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I would remind them of the words of Mr Henry Greenslade, the 2015 POPLA Chief Adjudicator who ensured consistency of decisions since 2012, whereby POPLA never found against a registered keeper where a clearly non-POFA Notice to Keeper was served, as in this case.

The Lead Adjudicator reminded operators (and his team of Assessors, in their training) of the following facts about a keeper's right not to name the driver and, of course, still not be lawfully able to be held liable, under Schedule 4:

URLLINK.transportxtra.com/publications/parking-review/news/46154/there-is-no-50-50-rule-for-private-parking-appeals-says-popla-s-michael-greensladeURLLINK

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.”

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: 4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;


*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.''

The operator has failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability due to the multiple flaws in the NTK. Therefore, no lawful right exists to claim unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the required conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.

This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator. in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report:

''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''




2) No landowner Authority:

I question Euro Car Parks Limited’s authority from the landowner, to enforce parking charges regarding alleged breaches at this car park.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Euro Car Parks Limited to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent who has no more title than the operator). I question Euro Car Parks Limited’s legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in neither their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves.

They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents on behalf of a principal. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Euro Car Parks Limited is entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within the BPA CoP. I suggest that Euro Car Parks Limited are certainly not empowered by the landowner to sue customers and visitors in a free of charge enormous car park and that issuing 'PCNs' by post is no evidence of any right to actually pursue charges in court.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:

“The written authorization must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

I put Euro Car Parks Limited to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

This is vital, especially in view of the signs where it is clear on close scrutiny, is that someone (identity not established and I ask the operator for evidence in this regard) has changed the time limit to 4.5 hours at some point. So, I contend that the contract - if this operator produces one - does not reflect the altered signage and if only a basic agreement or 'witness statement' is produced, then this will fail to demonstrate compliance with 7.3 (in particular, point b and d, above).

It is eminently possible that the contract states only the original free parking period (whatever that was) and therefore a sticker over a sign is unsupported by the will of the landowner in any contract. This would destroy any attempt by this operator to argue there is a Beavis-case-style 'legitimate interest' backed by any commercial justification and wishes of the landowner to sue customers after just 4.5 hours in a car park where they have only allowed this agent to issue PCNs after a completely different period.

I require Euro Car Parks Limited to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner showing evidence to meet 7.3 of the CoP. In order to comply, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.



3) BPA Code of Practice - further non-compliance - photo evidence.

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:

"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. Neither of these images contains a date and time stamp on the photographs nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as any particular location at all).

The time and date stamp has been inserted into the letter underneath (but not part of) the photographs. The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images, I require Euro Car Parks Limited to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.



4) The minimum grace period was not allowed by the Operator
British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 – 13.4 states:
13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a
driver who enters your car park but decides not to park,
to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’
in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the
driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period
at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 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. If the location is one where
parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.
Also, under the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 6, Oct 2015, states that if drivers
"…decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract." (18.5).

And that when using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR),
"…your system must allow drivers who have not paid the fee to leave a site within a reasonable period that allows for the conditions and environment of that parking site. This grace period should be long enough to allow motorists to leave without having their vehicle registration mark processed for a parking charge." (30.2)

The above states that a time no less than 20 minutes should be allowed for first, entry and consideration of the contract, and second, leaving the property. The times stated on the NTK show only the time of entry and exit (13:01 and 13:17 respectively). These do not indicate the time in which the vehicle parked. The charges laid out in the signage are only for the time that the vehicle was parked. The times stated on the NTK, however, are clear evidence that the vehicle entered the car park and left again within the grace period specified by the BPA CoP to protect consumers in the time that they need to find a parking space, consider the contract, and leave the car park again.

In this case, the 16 minutes was used to find a parking space, consider the terms of the contract, and decline the offer. The mention of a minimum of 10 minutes is exactly this, a minimum. The time needed to complete all these actions are dependent on a number of wildly varying factors, including traffic, lighting and parking conditions, driver’s eyesight and driving ability and mental faculties. For this reason, a minimum amount is specified, but the maximum time allowed for these tasks to be completed are not. Further to this, the signage makes no indication of how long a driver may be on the site before a parking penalty will be charged. This leaves the driver uncertain to the terms of the contract, which means that there was no full acceptance of the contract to be breached.

This location is managed by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology which takes a picture of the vehicle entering and exiting the site, these pictures are timed and therefore the duration of the stay can be calculated. All vehicle registration numbers are then matched against the data produced by the various means of paying for parking and a list of registration numbers where no payment has been made or where the motorist has stayed longer than the period paid is produced. After requesting vehicle keeper details from the DVLA, a Notice to keeper is sent to the keepers of the vehicles on this list. As a consequence at ANPR locations there will be no PCN issued to the windscreen neither will there be photographic evidence of the windscreen supplied in operator evidence packs.
Parking Charge Notice XXXX was issued to vehicleXXX breach of terms and conditions no valid pay and display/permit was purchased at the Bromsgrove Street - Birmingham car park. This car park operates a 24 hour ANPR + P&D operation therefore all vehicles are required to purchase a valid ticket for the full duration of stay within the car park.
In Mr XXX appeal to POPLA he states that the notice to keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012, no Land owner authority, noncompliance with the BPA code of practice, no minimum grace period allowed and unclear signage.
Euro Car Parks would like to respond to the points raised with the following:
This car park is LEASED by Euro Car Parks
• Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) code of practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.
• Signage on site is clear, when parking on private land it is the driver’s responsibility to read the signage displayed and parked accordance with the terms and conditions as stated.
• Euro Car Parks have provided photographic evidence showing that the appellant remained at the site for one hour and nineteen (Figure 1)
• The signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking, all drivers are required to purchase a valid pay and display ticket for the duration of their stay. Euro Car Parks can confirm that the signage on site clearly dispalys the tariff at Bromsgrove Street (Figure 2)
• The signage clearly states the rules and regulations of parking, all drivers are required to purchcase a valid pay and display ticket payment for the duration of their stay.
• Signage is visble when entering and inside of the car park and when entering private land it would be Mr XXX responsibilty to read the terms and conditions and adhere to them.
• Figure 3 shows the lease between ECP and the land owners.
• Euro Car Parks have erected clear and visible signage – there are three tariff bands. It is not within the drivers remit to interpret the signage or the site tariff in the way they see fit.
• Euro Car Parks would like to point out that all terms and conditions of parking are clearly displayed, this includes the charge payable should a breach of the terms and conditions occur.
• Contract law applies
• According to BPA Code of Practise 13.4 – car park operators should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended; before enforcement action is taken. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted; the grace period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes. I can confirm that Euro Car Parks have given Mr XXX ’s the suitable grace period of 10 minutes
• The contract (signage) clearly states the extra charges are that the driver will incur and have to pay if they decide to break the contract terms − for example, by parking longer than the time paid for or exceeding the maximum time limit applicable.
• A pay and display payment is required for the full duration of the stay on site
• The car park in question is on private land and upon entering such land vehicles are subject to the rules and regulations of parking as shown on the signage. This signage quite clearly states that if your vehicle is in breach of the rules and regulations of the car park then a parking charge notice (PCN) will be issued.
C1 MB


• On entry to private land it is the responsibility of the driver to check for signage and ensure that your vehicle has been correctly parked. Any vehicles found not adhering to the signage will be issued with a parking charge notice (PCN).
• As previously advised the car park is camera controlled and any notes/ pay and display ticket displayed on the dashboard will not be seen.
• Any form of parking ticket or ‘notice’ is issued under the law ‘of trespass and Contract Law’. A driver who is invited (or chooses) to park on private land and use the car parking facilities and pays a fee/s does so under a contract (signage) with the car park operator. The parking contract sets out the terms that apply to the parking service, including the price.
• The contract (signage) clearly states the extra charges are that the driver will incur and have to pay if they decide to break the contract terms − for example, by parking longer than the time paid for or exceeding the maximum time limit applicable.
• With regards to the reference to “Pre-Estimate of Loss/breach of consumer contracts 1999.” Please be advised that the Supreme Court has made judgement (04/11/15) that clearly sets out the issue of parking charge notices on private land (law of contract applies) and in particular pre-estimate of loss. The parking charge notice is enforceable on the basis that it protected a legitimate interest when the driver failed to adhere to the terms and conditions and was not extravagant, exorbitant nor unconscionable. The parking charge is not an unenforceable penalty and does not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
• Mr XXX was sent both the PCN and Notice to keeper (section 2), were he was given the option to provide the name and serviceable address of the driver if he was not driving at the time of the contravention.

I can confirm the signage on site is clear, it states the site is a 24 hour pay and display car park and that charges apply 24 hours a day and drivers must have a valid pay and display.
Euro Car Parks maintains that Mr XXX ‘s appeal should not be accepted and that the notice has been issued correctly and should remain payable. As the pay and display ticket purchased was not purchased for the full duration; Euro Car Parks assets that the parking charge notice was issued correctly and should remain payable.

ECP have failed to address the non-compliance of NTK; according to Paragraph 9(2), ECP did not inform me as the keeper, that the driver is required to pay and that the parking charges were not paid in full. Also NTK fails to include the wording prescribed in Paragraph 9(2)(e) relating to the passing of driver details. Due to the non-compliance of the NTK, ECP have no lawful right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper.
The NTK was still non-compliant in the images used as stipulated in CoP 20.5a where an image should not be altered, this again diminishes ECP right to pursue the alleged charge from the keeper.
In ECP response they state incorrectly on bullet point 3 that the vehicle was on the site for 1hour and 19; however the figure provided shows otherwise – less than 16 minutes.
Within the agreement provided by ECP there is no evidence that ECP is lawfully entitled to pursue charges in their own right in the courts which is a strict requirement within BPA CoP. Therefore ECP are not empowered by the landowner to pursue charges in court.
ECP state that the signage contains the terms and conditions; however a vehicle entering a car park does not automatically agree to the terms and conditions. Only when the driver has decided whether they should stay or go (CoP 13.1-13.4). The code clearly states that a time no less than 20 minutes should be allowed for 1: entry and consideration of contract; 2: leaving the property; ECP have only considered the time it takes to exit (10 minutes), but not the time it takes to initially park and consider the terms offered. The CoP exists to protect consumers in the time it takes them to find a parking space, consider the contract and leave the car park. Since this time was not exceeded the terms and conditions were not agreed upon nor was a contract established.
I question ECP statement that the charge was protecting a legitimate interest as there is no commercially or socially justifiable in the charge. Any loss of the small parking tariff would be to that of the landowner and not the operator (ECP)