Hilton Garden Inn - Heathrow T2 - Euro Car Parks - POPLA Stage

fivestarsamz

Recently, the drop off here has now been changed to chargeable at Hilton Garden Inn at Heathrow Terminal 2 (T2), so I am sure many drivers (especially private hire drivers) will be getting PCN from ECP. So thought I'd share my progress in here to help other people, as well as my friend here who has got the PCN.

My friend received NtK to the company, The logbook is on a company's name. The driver was dropping off at the hotel.
Time in the car park: 2 Minutes. Less than Consideration time.
The area falls within the Heathrow Airport boundary for byelaw, therefore not relevant land. Therefore, POFA does not apply; therefore, No keeper liability.

I have already made an appeal to ECP AS A KEEPER and did not tell them who the driver was, which (as predicted) they rejected.

They've given a POPLA code, so it should be an easy win for the POPLA stage.

Here is the my draft i used. What do you guys think? I am just waiting for the RK to send me the back of the NtK to see if point one is relevant.

_______________________________________


Dear POPLA,

On the 14th March 2026, Euro Car Parks (ECP) issued a parking charge and it was posted to my company (as keeper of the vehicle), highlighting that the above-mentioned vehicle had been in “breach of the terms and conditions” due to being parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, subparagraph 2 e and subparagraph 2 f and is therefore not POFA compliant.
2. Not relevant land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
3. No parking event occurred
4. No consideration period was given.
5. The operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
6. Illegible signage
7. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the Joint Code of Practice

Please see below for details

1. This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to not giving the warning required under schedule 4 paragraph 9 sub-paragraph 2f. Under schedule 4, paragraph 9 (2f) of the POFA, 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—
   

(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) 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; An operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraph 9. BPAM have failed to fulfil these conditions in the NTK issued.

Furthermore, the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph9(2)(e) dictate that the NtK must “state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. This cannot be found in the NtK sent.

2) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

As I am the registered keeper, I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof, otherwise, if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

The operator is under the misapprehension that they are operating on "relevant land" which they are not. The land is within the boundary of Heathrow Airport and is under statutory control (Airport bylaws) and is therefore not "relevant land" as defined in PoFA schedule 4 paragraph 3.

2(1) In this Schedule—

“relevant land” has the meaning given by paragraph 3;
3(1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—

(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control

Since the land in question is under statutory control, the NtK issued by MET is not valid as "relevant land" as required by PoFA which means as the registered keeper of the vehicle cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.

Their NTK can only hold the driver liable.

Airports Act 1986 indicates that Gatwick Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, fall under statutory control.

It is legally impossible under POFA for an Airport to be 'relevant land'. In the recent past, POPLA has sometimes got this wrong and your service had to apologise for a series of mistakes made by Assessors in 2023. This related to the misclassification (assumption) of a London Airport (Stansted) as relevant land, which more than one Assessor took to be true merely because the operator said it was so.

Don't believe what you read from the operator.

This issue was highlighted in POPLA's reply to a formal complaint, Code ref 4822223007, where Bethany Young of the POPLA Complaints Team acknowledged and apologised for the repeated errors made by Assessors who had blindly accepted what the operator said and not applied POFA properly.

On 7/12/2023 she stated that Assessors would be re-trained, with POPLA's Complaints Team findings being as follows:

"In the assessor’s rationale, they confirm they were not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle had been identified and subsequently concluded that the PCN complied with the provisions of PoFA. The assessor explained that they were not considering the appeal under byelaws, and I can see the appeal was assessed under contract law.

I fully accept that the assessor has incorrectly stated that the relevant land where PoFA is applicable includes any land which is subject to statutory control. You are correct that relevant land under PoFA excludes land subject to statutory control and the parking operator can only pursue the driver of the vehicle for the charge.

As per the complaint response you raised, the Airports Act 1986 indicates that Stansted Airport Limited, as an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, falls under statutory control. Whilst the assessor has not disputed this, it is evident they have incorrectly classified this as relevant land. This means that there has been a mis-assessment of your appeal.

I do apologise for this error and any resulting inconvenience that has been caused. I want to thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Whilst we always strive to issue accurate and robust decisions, (we consider over 60,000 cases a year) there is always the potential for human errors to be made. I note this is a second instance where this has occurred and therefore, I have escalated this internally.

We will ensure that all assessors complete a further extensive training course on the applications of PoFA, specifically in respect of relevant land, to address this issue going forward”

I assume that Assessor retraining took place earlier this year. Given this information and with correct application of the law, the only course of action is to accept and uphold my appeal.

ECP is in breach of the new joint CoP by issuing a PoFA NtK for an alleged breach of contract on land that is under statutory control. PoFA simply does not apply on this land, whether the NtK is compliant or not.

By breaching the CoP, they have breached the KADOE contract and therefore obtained the keepers data unlawfully.

3) No parking event occurred — passenger set down is an exempt activity.
The photos taken were from an ANPR camera at the entrance and exit. According to ECP NtK, the entry time was at 12:48:48 and exit at 12:50:33. This means that the vehicle remained on site for a duration of 1 minute 45 seconds. This is very little time to consider it a parking event. The driver may have been dropping off at the hotel, which is very common for a private hire vehicle. Given that the vehicle is a private hire vehicle (PHV), and the area is directly outside a hotel, it is likely that the vehicle was there to pick up/drop off passengers. Stopping momentarily to pick up or drop off passengers does not constitute parking.
The MHCLG Statutory Code of Practice (which represents the Government’s position on what private parking operators should be held to) explicitly states that a “period of parking” does not include passenger pick up or set down.

This is precisely the type of activity the Code exempts from enforcement. The operator has provided no evidence that the driver left the vehicle, that the vehicle was stationary for any meaningful period beyond the exempt activity, or that any act of parking, as distinct from a brief stop, occurred. The operator is put to strict proof that a parking event, as opposed to an exempt set down, took place.

4) No consideration period was given.
No consideration period not observed. Even if POPLA were to find that a parking event occurred (which is denied), the duration of less than 2 minutes falls entirely within the mandatory consideration period required by the BPA Code of Practice. The Code requires operators to allow motorists sufficient time upon entering a site to locate signage, read and understand the terms, and decide whether to accept them or leave. No reasonable driver could be expected to do any of these things within the time. No contract could therefore have been formed, and no breach can arise. The charge must be cancelled on this ground alone.

5) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. At no point have ECP provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

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

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

6) Illegible sign – No contract form
I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver. A driver cannot read a small, unlit, illegible signs whilst driving a motor vehicle as this is illegal under the Road Traffic Act 1988. If the driver was to read it, they would need to stop the car, and read it, which can be considered as causing an obstruction against the Road Traffic Act, or the driver will be driving without due care and attention which is another against the Road Traffic Act. Since equity cannot allow these types of offence to be put into a contract, the contract becomes null and void. Since this private land has public access, the Road Traffic Act are enforced on this land.

It is not reasonable or adequate that the driver would be able to read the sign whilst driving without driving ‘without attention and due care’ without stopping the car.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (which came into force on 1 October 2024 and now applies to all BPA and IPC members including ECP) requires that:

• Signage must be clear, prominent, legible, and unambiguous;
• Signage must be visible at the entrance and from parking spaces;
• The parking charge amount must be clearly displayed as one of the most prominent terms;
• Terms and conditions must be readable before the motorist decides to remain.

The signs are unlit, and small and difficult to read, insufficient to alert the motorist of the terms. I put the operator to strict proof that the signage was adequately illuminated and legible to a motorist. I further put the operator to strict proof as to: the size of the lettering for the most onerous term (the parking charge itself); the number and positioning of signs; and whether the signs were visible and readable from the point at which a driver must decide whether to remain. Generic photographs or promotional images taken at different times or in different lighting conditions should not be accepted as evidence of the signage conditions on the evening in question.

7) Landowner Authority
The operator has to comply with all requirements in the Joint Code. They must show that they have complied with the new Code regarding site-specific dates and details of landowner authority at this site.

The following Joint Code Clauses apply:

ANNEX G: Sample landowner/operator notice, as well as clauses G1, G2 and G3 and clause 14 - 'Relationship with landowner' which says:

'Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s)
b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;
d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission
e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;
g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs
h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner;
and j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.'

I put ECP to strict proof to show that they have Landowner authority that strictly complies with the Joint Code and Clause 14.

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN

Kind regards,

Teamkenny

I received one (yesterday 28thApril) for 14th April for a 3 minute drop off.
I'm about to start the same process.
Can I pinch your letter?

Gr1pr

You can use it for the subsequent POPLA stage, with suitable changes

As for the initial appeal, use the airports keeper appeal as seen in the airport group threads based on no keeper liability due to POFA2012 not applying at airports, as seen in Gatwick, Heathrow and Manchester airport threads

Appeals are done online, not by letter post

Coupon-mad

Remove this needless intro:

"On the 14th March 2026, Euro Car Parks (ECP) issued a parking charge and it was posted to my company (as keeper of the vehicle), highlighting that the above-mentioned vehicle had been in “breach of the terms and conditions” due to being parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction."

Then change all the "I am" to "we" or the name of the company. E.g. here (and in point 2 and later on there are several "I" which should instead say "we" or the firm's name:

"As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled on the following grounds:"

Remove this (below) and replace it with a paragraph pointing out that a legal entity (company name) cannot have been the driver!

"The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge".

And:

I spotted MET Parking in the middle!

fivestarsamz

Thank you! I have made those edits and added an image of the Heathrow Boundary map.

of course! @Teamkenny

quick question: POPLA is asking for name of a person. but the RK is a company. Shall I just put the Company name in the First and Last name? And for Title choose any?

Coupon-mad

Yes. Company name.