Euro car parks queries & POPLA appeal draft for feedback

Lulu58

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82087928#Comment_82087928

Hi Coupon-mad, thanks for your post.

I think I'll try POPLA first, just for the helluva it. I'll post my draft on here first.

I'll also send the evidence over to the CMA. I did miss that news 🤔 but will take a look now. I've just seen that the CMA imposed a £473k penalty on ECP for failing to respond to a notice that legally required them to provide info back in February this year 😁

Is there still a post outlining the '8 steps' to take? I think I've found the defence thread since posting yesterday but the 8 steps is proving more illusive.

Gr1pr

The 8 steps are in the first post in that defence template thread ( only the first 2 posts are valid ) and it only applies to Money Claim cases

But at the moment you are in the before a claim stage, so see the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum

Lulu58

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82088345#Comment_82088345

Thanks, Gr1pr

Lulu58

Hi all, I've trawled through quite a few POPLA appeals on this board and read some of the posts.

Below is my second draft for POPLA (I revised the first draft after Gr1pr comments below, and I also realised one of the paragraphs was wrong). ! would like some feedback as I'm very uncertain of the terminology etc and also whether I've missed something useful out.

I haven't been able to approach the retailer/organisation who owns the car park because the information is not available. It's an ECP controlled car park in the middle of a number of stores.

Thank you in advance!

I am appealing this parking charge notice as the registered keeper. Euro Car Parks states the breach is "No valid pay and display/permit was purchased." I dispute this charge on the following grounds:

1. Frustration of Contract due to Machine Equipment Failure (Error C117) The driver fully intended to pay for parking and made genuine attempts to do so at the on-site payment terminal using their payment card. However, the Euro Car Parks machine failed to process the transaction correctly due to an internal system fault. Instead of issuing a standard parking permit, the machine printed a physical receipt explicitly titled "Void transaction receipt (C117)" and "Not a parking ticket".

Under contract law, a contract cannot be breached if its execution was rendered impossible due to a fault with the operator's own hardware. The driver was actively prevented from paying by Euro Car Parks' faulty machinery, and no straightforward alternative payment option was provided on-site. The operator cannot legally issue a punitive fine for the lack of a permit when their own equipment actively barred the consumer from obtaining one. I have attached a clear photograph of this void receipt as irrefutable proof.

As absolute proof of this timeline, the ANPR camera logs an entry time of 12:46:09, and the attached Euro Car Parks receipt is stamped 12:48:00—less than two minutes later. This proves the driver immediately, honestly, and in total good faith attempted to pay upon arrival, and that the contract was frustrated immediately upon entry.

2. Breach of Mandatory BPA Consideration and Grace Periods The time indicated by the ANPR cameras (3 hours and 6 minutes) captures the total time the vehicle spent crossing the site boundaries. The initial period spent navigating the car park, queuing, and interacting with the malfunctioning terminal must be classified as part of the mandatory British Parking Association (BPA) consideration period. Because the operator's own infrastructure failed to provide a functioning system for parking management, the calculated "time in car park" is artificially inflated and invalid for enforcement.

3. Failure to Provide Legible Signage and Clear Terms The BPA Code of Practice requires signage to be clear, distinct, and legible. The photographic evidence of the signage provided by Euro Car Parks in their rejection correspondence is entirely illegible, with the small print completely unreadable. If the operator cannot provide legible proof of their terms, they fail to demonstrate that a lawful contract was ever bound or communicated to the motorist.

4. Euro Car Parks' Unfair Practices Under Active CMA Consumer Protection Investigation The systemic unfairness of Euro Car Parks' enforcement model along with confusing automated terminal outputs is further highlighted by the formal CMA Consumer Protection Case against Euro Car Parks. The CMA is explicitly investigating whether ECP's wider practices and appeals processes breach consumer protection law.

Furthermore, the CMA’s concurrent Open Letter to the Private Parking Sector mandates that operators ensure their appeals handling is fair and treats consumers equitably. ECP’s automated rejection of this appeal completely ignores the CMA's regulatory directive. They are penalising a consumer for an unauthorized stay that was caused entirely by their own system's terminal failure. POPLA must not endorse predatory practices currently under active regulatory investigation for consumer law non-compliance.

5. Failure to Specify "Period of Parking" under PoFA 2012The Notice to Keeper relies entirely on ANPR camera timestamps showing entry and exit to claim "Time in car park". Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, an operator must specify the actual period of parking (when the vehicle was stationary). Because ECP has failed to state the true period of stationary parking and has calculated times strictly from moving boundary cameras, they have failed strict PoFA compliance and cannot hold the registered keeper liable.

ConclusionThe driver acted in total good faith, with absolute proof that the lack of a valid permit is entirely due to Euro Car Parks' faulty machine (Error C117). I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Euro Car Parks to cancel this charge.

Gr1pr

I think that maybe add something about the CMA investigating ECP for these types of machine failures, and their recent Open Letter

Lulu58

Thanks, Gr1pr. I've edited the letter and reposted it above. I am drafting a separate letter to send to the CMA once I've finalised the POPLA letter.

Lulu58

Does anyone else have any feedback or comments for me, or perhaps spotted something I've missed?

Coupon-mad

Change the start, to make it very clear that on the day, you reasonably believed it was a receipt and had no reason to pore over the tiny print and did not have your reading glasses with you. Say that, even if you don't have any!

Make it clear that you only spotted it said 'error' when the PCN arrived out of the blue and you fished it out of your bag/car.

Add a para about 'no landowner authority'.

And also add the clause in the 'Piece of PSSCoP' that says that operators must not produce void tickets that look like receipts.

Finally, why not (before trying POPLA, as you have a month to use a POPLA Code) send an email complaint tomorrow, to the DPO at Euro Car Parks telling them this is a data complaint and objection to Automated Decision-Making (ADM).

The ADM caused this: the system automatically and unfairly churned out a bizarre 'error receipt' that looked very much the same as a payment receipt and was taken to be the latter.

Remind ECP that they remain the data controller even when using a third party payment machine and that the DUA Act 2025 grants consumers a 'right to object' to data processing when there is no human intervention or checks. There was no human involvement: the system churned out a void receipt then churned out a PCN by post after using the electronic KADOE link and using automated post.

This is a formal objection about the ADM and if the PCN is not cancelled with an apology, the escalation will be complaints to the CMA and ICO, with your evidence of a lack of open dealing, unfairness and data failure, as well as calling into question ECP's appeals and complaints handling, given the void 'receipt' proves the system was at fault, not the motorist.

Lulu58

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82094740#Comment_82094740

Hi Coupon-mad and thanks so much for your post. I've re-drafted the POPLA letter to include the points you've mentioned.

I have sent an email to the DPO. As and when I get response I will update my post.

Here is the revised letter. It feels very long and wordy and I'm definitely out of my depth here!

I am appealing this parking charge notice as the registered keeper. Euro Car Parks states the breach is "No valid pay and display/permit was purchased." I dispute this charge on the following grounds:

1. Frustration of Contract due to Machine Equipment Failure & PSSCoP Section 8.1 Breach The driver fully intended to pay for parking upon arrival and made multiple genuine attempts to do so at the on-site payment terminal using their payment card. However, the Euro Car Parks machine repeatedly failed to process the transaction correctly due to an internal system fault. After these attempts, the machine ultimately printed a physical receipt explicitly titled "Void transaction receipt (C117)" and "NOT A PARKING TICKET".

Under contract law, a contract cannot be breached if its execution was rendered impossible due to a fault with the operator's own hardware. The driver was actively prevented from paying by Euro Car Parks' faulty machinery, and no straightforward alternative payment option was provided on-site. The operator cannot legally issue a punitive fine for the lack of a permit when their own equipment actively barred the consumer from obtaining one. I have attached a clear photograph of this void receipt as irrefutable proof.

Furthermore, under Section 8.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PSSCoP), operators must ensure that technology and machines do not produce deceptive or confusing outputs that mislead consumers. While the operator's terminal technically included the phrase "NOT A PARKING TICKET" in bold capitals, the physical slip itself was formatted and dispensed in a layout indistinguishable from a standard active permit at casual glance. A motorist cannot be expected to pore over dense terminal text during a systemic hardware failure to cross-examine technical error codes. The driver reasonably assumed this automated slip was a standard transaction confirmation receipt and only became aware that the machine had completely failed to log the session when the PCN subsequently arrived in the post. Under PSSCoP guidelines, Euro Car Parks bears strict responsibility for clear automated hardware outputs and cannot penalise a consumer when their faulty machine generates ambiguous documentation following an internal system error (Error C117).

As absolute proof of this timeline, the ANPR camera logs an entry time of 12:46:09, and the attached Euro Car Parks receipt is stamped 12:48:00—less than two minutes later. This perfectly accounts for the time spent making multiple payment attempts and proves the driver immediately, honestly, and in total good faith attempted to pay upon arrival.

2. Breach of Mandatory BPA Consideration and Grace Periods The time indicated by the ANPR cameras (3 hours and 6 minutes) captures the total time the vehicle spent crossing the site boundaries. The initial period spent navigating the car park, queuing, and repeatedly interacting with the malfunctioning terminal must be classified as part of the mandatory British Parking Association (BPA) consideration period. Because the operator's own infrastructure failed to provide a functioning system for parking management, the calculated "time in car park" is artificially inflated and invalid for enforcement.

3. Failure to Provide Legible Signage and Clear Terms The BPA Code of Practice requires signage to be clear, distinct, and legible. The photographic evidence of the signage provided by Euro Car Parks in their rejection correspondence is entirely illegible, with the small print completely unreadable. If the operator cannot provide legible proof of their terms, they fail to demonstrate that a lawful contract was ever bound or communicated to the motorist.

4. Euro Car Parks' Unfair Practices Under Active CMA Consumer Protection Investigation The systemic unfairness of Euro Car Parks' enforcement model and confusing automated terminal outputs is further highlighted by the formal CMA Consumer Protection Case against Euro Car Parks. The CMA is explicitly investigating whether ECP's wider practices and appeals processes breach consumer protection law.

Furthermore, the CMA’s concurrent Open Letter to the Private Parking Sector mandates that operators ensure their appeals handling is fair and treats consumers equitably. ECP’s automated rejection of this appeal completely ignores the CMA's regulatory directive. They are penalising a consumer for an unauthorised stay that was caused entirely by their own system's terminal failure. POPLA must not endorse predatory practices currently under active regulatory investigation for consumer law non-compliance.

5. Failure to Specify "Period of Parking" under PoFA 2012 The Notice to Keeper relies entirely on ANPR camera timestamps showing entry and exit to claim "Time in car park". Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, an operator must specify the actual period of parking (when the vehicle was stationary). Because ECP has failed to state the true period of stationary parking and has calculated times strictly from moving boundary cameras, they have failed strict PoFA compliance and cannot hold the registered keeper liable.

6. Lack of Landowner Authority & Locus Standi (PSSCoP Section 14.1) Pursuant to Section 14.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PSSCoP), parking operators must hold strict, written contemporaneous authorisation from the actual landholder to operate on the site and issue charges. I challenge Euro Car Parks' legal standing (locus standi) and authority to manage this land or pursue enforcement action in their own name on the material date.

I require Euro Car Parks to provide POPLA with a complete, unredacted, and up-to-date copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner to prove they possess the necessary legal parameters to issue this charge. If they fail to produce an unredacted chain of authority, this case must be dismissed.

ConclusionThe driver acted in total good faith, with absolute proof that the lack of a valid permit is entirely due to Euro Car Parks' faulty machine (Error C117). I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Euro Car Parks to cancel this charge.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 2 and 5 which won't make any difference and they are distracting the reader from the best points.

Change this (don't draw attention to their bold capitals)!

"While the operator's terminal technically included the phrase "NOT A PARKING TICKET" in bold capitals, the physical slip itself"

to

Apart from the heading, the physical slip itself…

And change this:

"They are penalising a consumer for an unauthorised stay that was caused entirely by their own system's terminal failure. POPLA must not endorse predatory practices currently under active regulatory investigation for consumer law non-compliance."

to

They are penalising a consumer for an issue that was caused entirely by their own system's failure. I have raised an objection to data processing with ECP's Data protection officer, and if they process my data further, I will report them to the Information Commissioner. Further, this is plainly unfair (to charge in these circumstances is a breach of the DMCC Act 2024 and not in good faith) and I will show my evidence to the CMA if ECP don't concede this appeal.

POPLA must not endorse predatory practices currently under active regulatory investigation for consumer law non-compliance. If POPLA now fails to properly apply the legal tests of fairness and 'open dealing' cited by the CMA, and if POPLA sides with your paymasters, I will report POPLA to the CMA too, as unfit. The entire sector (including POPLA) needs urgent retraining on applying consumer protection law properly and in the interests of motorists instead of lazily relying on the self-serving farce of the PSSCoP, which the CMA pointed out "doesn't reflect the law".

POPLA: the CMA's Open Letter applies to your service, too.

Kindly restrain yourself from your standard 'the BPA's fee-paying operator is always right/the motorist should have left the site' knee-jerk consumer blame mentality that your assessors usually rely on and kindly stop routinely misapplying the Beavis case against consumers in cases like this, where the facts are fully distinguished.

Ultimately, I will happily fight the matter in the court process, which provides consumers with real ADR, but that will be well after the CMA has investigated Euro Car Parks for various consumer protection concerns and announced the main issues that they are widely believed to find are unfair and unlawful conduct. Given this issue (automated PCNs raised due entirely to broken payment systems, yet blaming consumers for remaining on site) is almost bound to be one of those issues, the PCN is unrecoverable and was not properly given.

Please show us the void receipt slip. I'd like to see it as evidence.