Euro Car Parks

thegasman888

I’d be grateful for any thoughts on this case.

My car was parked in a Euro Car Parks site at the rear of a shop in order to allow attendance at an event nearby. It was outside business hours and a sign at the site appeared to imply this was outside the hours of operation of the parking charges. Arrived in the dark which may have contributed to that interpretation.

I haven’t returned to the site as it’s some distance away but I found a sign on the web that is similar to the one that I believe was at the site.

A little over a month after the day of parking I received a Final Notification Letter from ECP saying the period for paying a lesser amount had expired etc and that full payment was expected. There was no NTK or prior letter. The FNL contains an entry/exit time from ANPR but no photos etc. 

Owners of the site approached, a bit of discussion followed, but ultimately they wouldn’t cancel.

An appeal was submitted to ECP, which was rejected:

Having carefully considered the supporting evidence provided by you, Euro Car Parks (ECP) have

decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:

• The Site is operated by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. ANPR cameras have captured an image of the vehicle registration mark VK13SFZ entering and leaving The Site and calculated the duration of stay.

• Parking at The Site is limited to 120 minutes. Your vehicle entered at xx:xx:xx and exited at xx:xx:xx therefore was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.

• Signage located throughout The Site clearly details the terms and conditions. On entry to private land, it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure all terms and conditions as detailed on the signage are adhered to.

• Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given. If the full amount remains unpaid, under

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’), Euro Car Parks have the right subject of the Act to recover from the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much of that amount which remains unpaid.

The parking charge notice has been issued correctly and remains payable.

A photo of a sign is included which seems different to the one that is remembered. 

I’m writing a POPLA appeal and will copy in my MP.

I’m using the info on the website as a template but adding specific info about not having received anything in 14 days, and this not being addressed in their response. Also pointing out that the new sign appears to limit parking to 10 minutes out of hours, as opposed to the two hours stated in their letter, which would suggest ECP themselves are confused by their own signage. I’ll post that here when I’ve finalised it.

Grateful for any thoughts that would be helpful in dealing with this.

thegasman888

The photo supplied:

Car1980

Keep all the evidence and look out for the court claim.

Which will eventually be discontinued if you defend.

Gr1pr

Their popla evidence pack should contain a copy of the original NTK PCN letter, so you can check that for POFA compliance ( not receiving it is no defence, especially if you received the reminder PCN. )

If your appeal outed the driver then POFA and the 14 days went into the nearest bin ( the 6 + 1 months rule would apply. )

Their evidence pack should also contain pictures of the signage and landowner authority etc too

The signage may play a part but if you were parked there for longer than the claimed 2 hours maximum then all the new sign means is that its been lowered to 10 minutes, neither would cover the time on site 

Poor and inadequate signage and lighting are certainly points for the popla appeal 

1505grandad

Check that the signage exhibits are date and time stamped for the relevant parking event.

thegasman888

Thanks all, here's a draft. I've taken out the dates, times etc but as before - no NtK, Final notification only, > 28 days

Appeal re POPLA Code: xx v Euro Car Parks Ltd

Vehicle Registration: xx

POPLA Verification Code: xx

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xx headed Final Notification Letter from Euro Car Parks Ltd. I had not received any prior communication or correspondence, and no notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – Euro Car Parks Ltd – was submitted and acknowledged on xx but subsequently rejected by email dated xx. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1) No Parking Charge Notice or Notice to Keeper received. 1st Letter received exceeds time limit set out in POFA 2012

2) There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Signage content confusing regarding hours of operation and limits

3) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

4) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach

5) No Vehicle Images contained in Correspondence: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

6) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

7) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

8) No Planning Permission from Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

9) Correspondence wording not POFA 2012 compliant.

1. No Parking Charge Notice or Notice to Keeper received. 1st Letter received exceeds time limit set out in POFA 2012 

The first communication received from Euro Car Parks Ltd was a Final Notification Letter dated xx. It details an alleged infringement on the xx. No ticket was issued at the site, and no Parking Charge Notice or Notice to Keeper was given or received. 

As no Notice to Keeper has been given or received this claim is without merit. None of the conditions in POFA 2012 Paragraph 9 can be met, although I draw particular attention to the following: 

(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. 

POFA 2012 Paragraph 4.4 states “The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given”. No such NTK has been given or received, and as the right may only be exercised after the NTK is given, no such claim can be made.

Additionally POFA 2012 Paragraph 4.5 states “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).” Again, as no NTK has been given or received, no amount has been specified, and there can be no valid claim.

POFA 2012 Paragraph 6 states: “The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) — (a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or (b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.” No notice to the driver was given as in paragraph 7 or the keeper as in paragraph 8: 

7.(4)The notice must be given—

(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and

(b)while the vehicle is stationary

8.(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.“

The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.

Paragraph 8 also states:

(7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.

No evidence has been received.

Therefore, the communication from ECP Ltd is non-compliant with POFA 2012 on multiple fronts and without merit. 

thegasman888

2. There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Signage content confusing regarding hours of operation and limits

Please see attached picture which demonstrates the lack of signage when approaching on Wesley Road.

In addition, the signage within the site is confusing and unclear.

I believe the following sign was displayed at the site. It gives the impression that the hours of operation of parking limits are 08:00-18:00. When arriving after dark (as in the alleged timings) it would be reasonable to make this assumption. It is only on reading the smaller text that one would see that charges apply outside these hours.

<sign image>

In the rejection e-mail ECP Ltd have attached a sign which is different to the above. I include it below:

<sign image>

This sign could also be easily read as implying that the hours of operation are 08:00-18:00. Although I suggest that this sign is different to the one displayed at the time, on examining further the sign suggests that parking is limited to 10 minutes outside the hours of 08:00-18:00. Yet the letter rejecting the appeal received from ECP Ltd states “Parking at The Site is limited to 120 minutes. Your vehicle entered at xx and exited at xx therefore was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.” It therefore appears that ECP Ltd do not understand their own rules and/or signage. If the company producing these rules and signs are unable to fully understand them, how is the average consumer supposed to? 

I suggest that these rules and signage are deliberately opaque in an attempt to confuse those using the site (and apparently the company producing them).

I ask that there are appropriately time and date stamped images to confirm the signage in operation on the date of the alleged parking.

3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation 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 would like to question if Euro Car Parks Ltd has authority to issue PCNs. The contract must be shown, signed and dated, and how the hours of operation on the contract are. This will allow POPLA to confirm if the contract is either incorrect, the signage is incorrect and that the operator is not following the terms of the contract.

The signage states that Euro Car Parks manage the car park on behalf of The Original Factory Shop. A disclosed principal means that the contract is with The Original Factory Shop, especially where an agent takes no responsibility for the land.

The authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Ex 169, is authority for the legal position, that where there is a disclosed principal, an agent cannot sue.

Therefore Euro Car Parks is not established as the creditor, has no standing to litigate and is merely acting as an agent, issuing charges on behalf of the principal, the disclosed landowner The Original Factory Shop.

4. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach

BPA’s Code of Practice (22.4) states that:

“It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:

• be registered with the Information Commissioner

• keep to the Data Protection Act

• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data

• follow the guidelines from the Information

Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks”

The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of Practice (22.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at:

“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment including:

• Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);”

“the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organization using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.”

“If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”

“You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals”

“You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper assessment.”

“If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary.”

“Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to minimize these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.”

“Note:

... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations should therefore also consider these issues.”

“A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.”

The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that if Euro Car Parks Ltd wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. It also states that Euro Car Parks Ltd must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

It therefore follows that I require Euro Car Parks Ltd to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate”.

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:

“5.3 Staying in Control

Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code’s requirements in practice. You should:

• tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;”

“7.6 Privacy Notices

It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear.

One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access.”

Euro Car Parks Ltd has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Euro Car Parks Ltd has not stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on any paperwork, NtK, reminder letter or rejection letter despite there being a Data Protection heading on the back of the NtK. This is a mandatory requirement of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful.

As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law, POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

5. No Vehicle Images contained in Correspondence: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance

The BPA Code of Practice point 21.5a 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 only correspondence received is the Final Notification Letter, and dismissal of appeal. There are no license plate images or associated time and date stamps.

A recent investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximizing the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially incentivized not to use the original image as evidence, but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee. I require Euro Car Parks Ltd to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.

thegasman888

6. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

Euro Car Parks Ltd’s Final Notification Letter simply claims that the vehicle was observed at The Original Factory Shop - Cinderford at 20:05 and that there was an issue time at 23:25. There is no explanation of how this data has been collected.

Euro Car Parks Ltd states the images and time stamps are collected by its ANPR camera system installed on site, however no images were included on the Final Notification Letter. No Notice to Keeper was received with images with or without date or time stamps.

In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, The British Parking Association does not audit the ANPR systems in use by parking operators, and the BPA has no way to ensure that the systems are in good working order or that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has NOT found that the technology is 'generally accurate' or proportionate, or reliable at all, and this is one of the reasons why Councils are banned from using it in car parks.

As proof of this assertion here are two statements by the BPA themselves, the first one designed to stop POPLA falling into error about assumed audits:

Steve Clark, Head of Operational Services at the BPA emailed a POPLA 'wrong decision' victim back in January 2018 regarding this repeated misinformation about BPA somehow doing 'ANPR system audits', and Mr Clark says:

"You were concerned about a comment from the POPLA assessor who determined your case which said:

"In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate" You believe that this statement may have been a contributory factor to the POPLA decision going against you, and required answers to a number of questions from us.

This is not a statement that I have seen POPLA use before and therefore I queried it with them, as we do not conduct the sort of assessments that the Assessor alludes to.

POPLA have conceded that the Assessor's comments may have been a misrepresentation of Clause 22.3 of the BPA Code which says:

''22.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.''

Our auditors check operators compliance with this Code clause and not the cameras themselves.''

Secondly, ANPR data processing and/or system failure is well known, and is certainly inappropriate in a mixed retail and residential area, such as the location in question. The BPA even warned about ANPR flaws:

''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use'' and they specifically mention the flaw of assuming that 'drive in, drive out' events are parking events. They state that: ''Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner''.

Excessive use of ANPR 24/7 when such blanket coverage is overkill in terms of data processing, was also condemned by the BPA and the ICO: <link removed - not allowed to post>

Furthermore signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

Euro Car Parks’ signs do not comply with these requirements because this car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

The Euro Car Parks’ main sign states:

“We are using automatic number plate recognition and/or handheld cameras to capture images of vehicle number plates to monitor and enforce the above terms and conditions.”

Specifically missing from this sentence is the vital information that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices. The Euro Car Parks’ sign makes no mention of Parking Charge Notices being issued as a result of images captured by the ANPR cameras and instead merely states

“Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice (£60 if paid within 14 days of issue).”

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms.

I also refer to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency:

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 Paragraph 69:

Contract terms that may have different meanings:

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

Withholding material information from a consumer about the commercial (not security) purpose of the cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':

It is unfair to assume ANPR systems work, and expect consumers to prove the impossible about the workings of a system over which they have no control but where independent and publicly available information about its inherent failings is readily available.

7. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Paragraph 22.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

Euro Car Parks Ltd’s signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

There is no information that indicates that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.

8. No Planning Permission from Forest of Dean District Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

A search in Forest of Dean District Council’s planning database does not show any planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR cameras for the Original Factory Shop - Cinderford, nor does it show any advertising consent for signage exceeding 0.3m2. UK government guidance on advertisement requires:

“If a proposed advertisement does not fall into one of the Classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to the Regulations, consent must be applied for and obtained from the local planning authority (referred to as express consent in the Regulations). Express consent is also required to display an advertisement that does not comply with the specific conditions and limitations on the class that the advertisement would otherwise have consent under.

It is a criminal offence to display an advertisement without consent.” 

I submit that Euro Car Parks Ltd is/has been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted ANPR cameras) for which no planning application had been made. I request Euro Car Parks Ltd provides evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to the pole-mounted ANPR cameras and that Advertising Consent was gained for signage exceeding 0.3 m2.

9) Correspondence wording not POFA 2012 compliant

The Final Notification Letter from Euro Car Parks Ltd, uses the words "We have the right..." instead of "You are warned..." when referring to the 28 days after which the Registered Keeper (RK) will become liable.

PoFA 2012 9(2)(f) specifically states "The notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given..."

In arguing the case that correspondence from an unregulated private parking company is invalid due to the use of "advised" instead of "warned" in relation to liability, I suggest the following points should be considered:

1. **Specific Language of PoFA 2012

- The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) sets out specific requirements for NtKs, particularly in relation to the liability of the registered keeper (RK). It explicitly uses the term "warn" when describing the notification to the keeper about their potential liability.

2. **Legal Precision:

- Legal documents and statutes are often drafted with precision. If the legislation specifies the use of the term "warn", it implies a deliberate choice of language, and deviation from this language may be argued as a failure to meet the legal requirements.

3. **Intent and Clarity:

- The use of the term "warn" implies a certain level of seriousness and urgency. It suggests that the registered keeper needs to be clearly made aware of the consequences and potential liability. If the correspondence uses the term "we have the right" instead, it may be argued that it does not meet the required level of clarity and seriousness as intended by the legislation.

4. **Purpose of Warning:

- PoFA 2012 includes the requirement for a warning to ensure that the registered keeper is informed about their potential liability and the importance of addressing the matter promptly. If the correspondence uses a softer term like "we have the right", it may be contended that the purpose of the warning, which is to convey a sense of urgency and potential consequences, is not adequately fulfilled.

5. **Legislative Compliance:

- Compliance with legislative requirements is crucial for the validity of any legal document, including NtKs or other correspondence. If the language used deviates from what is prescribed by the legislation, it may be argued that the document fails to meet the statutory requirements and, therefore, is not legally effective.

I would also like Euro Car Parks Ltd to answer this question: Is this a penalty charge notice or an invoice? If it is  to  an invoice, it is missing details that would make it a legally valid document. Until this question is resolved, we do not accept the charge.

I therefore request that you consider my appeal and cancel this unfair parking charge notice due to the reasons mentioned above.

Yours sincerely,

thegasman888

Credit to mysticalsoul786 - a useful draft on another thread which I have borrowed heavily from

Coupon-mad

Personally, I wouldn't bother. It's POFA-compliant so if you were my relative, I'd say do nothing.

I mean, you can do it to cost them money and hope that might not contest it because of being short staffed over the Xmas break but you won't actually win an overstay case at POPLA unless you can show the signage is inadequate.

thegasman888

Thanks. I'm not regretting the time spent writing that at all

I was hoping the no NtK received, and 1st correspondence arriving > 28 days might make it non-compliant, as according to my reading of the regs it could be (although I understand they can say we sent it...and then, bizarrely the burden of proof appears to be on me to demonstrate otherwise?).