Euro car parks queries & POPLA appeal draft for feedback

Lulu58

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82095973#Comment_82095973

Hi Coupon-mad, below is the revised draft with your suggestions.

You will see that I had added a paragraph at the beginning advising that I had raised a complaint with the DPO under the DUA 2025. This was in case I hadn't heard from the DPO before the POPLA deadline. I'm thinking this duplicates some of your wording and I should perhaps reword those paragraphs, or remove the additional paragraph. What are your thoughts?

Also, I've just noticed that I have drawn attention to the 'NOT A PARKING TICKET' in the first paragraph of point (1). Perhaps I need to amend this also?

A copy of the ticket is included (I hope!).

Revised draft:

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:

Preliminary Matter: Active Data Protection & ADM DisputeBefore addressing the specific contractual grounds of this appeal, I draw the Adjudicator's attention to the fact that a formal data protection complaint and objection to Automated Decision-Making (ADM) under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 is currently pending with Euro Car Parks’ Data Protection Officer. The operator's automated systems processed personal data and generated this charge entirely without human intervention following a proven hardware error. Euro Car Parks has been formally notified that their failure to manually review this systemic failure constitutes a breach of the regulatory framework.

1. Frustration of Contract due to Machine Equipment Failure & PSSCoP Section 8.1 BreachThe 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. Apart from the heading, 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. Failure to Provide Legible Signage and Clear TermsThe 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.

3. Euro Car Parks' Unfair Practices Under Active CMA Consumer Protection InvestigationThe 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 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’s Office. 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.

4. 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

Definitely remove this:

"explicitly titled "Void transaction receipt (C117)" and "NOT A PARKING TICKET".

There's NO WAY you should be saying that, or using the word 'explicitly' about it! Say this instead:

That receipt is very misleading. It even quotes my redacted card number and the amount paid. Without reading glasses, many people would pop that on their dash without a second glance and it is the burden of the trader to issue fair and non-ambiguous consumer notices (this receipt is a 'consumer notice', per the Consumer Rights Act 2015). This one mimics a payment receipt in everything except in merely two words 'void' and 'not' and the machine should never issue a 'receipt' that could be taken to mean all is well.

Lulu58

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82096491#Comment_82096491

Thanks, Coupon-mad. I've amended the letter.

Hopefully the DPO will cancel the ticket.

I'll update this post when I either hear from the DPO or send the POPLA appeal.

Lulu58

The DPO bounced our claim advising that various drivers either side of the time my husband was in the car park succuessfully paid and that the signage is clear etc.

My husband wants to pay while we can still do so at the reduced rate of £60 which is a shame.

Gr1pr

He should man up and not pay a penny, ECP via DCB Legal always discontinue in the end

Lulu58

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82109431#Comment_82109431

Unfortunately, he is not easily persuaded!

ChirpyChicken

Its a very easy win if you follow the set process

Tell him not to be so gullible !

Lulu58

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82109570#Comment_82109570

I've spoken with him again. He would have been happy to try POPLA if we still had the option to pay £60 but as we don't and he doesn't want to go to the next stage, he's decided against taking it further 😒