If ever a bottom dwelling firm of ex-clampers deserved their cummupance…

The CMA has imposed a £473,000 penalty on Euro Car Parks for failing to respond to a notice that legally required the company to provide information.

• The penalty is the first issued under the CMA’s new fining powers
  
• Information notices are often used to gather evidence as part of assessing whether the CMA should open an investigation – it is a legal obligation to comply with such notices, they are not optional
  
• The CMA has not opened an investigation into whether Euro Car Parks has infringed consumer protection law and no assumption should be made that the business has done so
  

Quote:We are an evidence-based authority, and information notices are essential tools that help us understand the facts and get to the bottom of potential infringements of the law. It is a legal obligation to comply with them – they are not optional.

This is the first time we’ve used our new powers to fine a company for failing to respond to such a notice – and it sends a clear message: firms that don’t reply to our requests or refuse to comply risk facing penalties like this one.

Hello,

I started a thread in a different forum but would like to continue it here, since the responsiveness in the other forum dried up.

NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool

I don't think there is anything to do until DCB Legal reply.

Thanks

Hello again b789. 

You might remember me from ftla. 

Thought you should see this to forestall the same thing happening to other enquirers:

https://ibb.co/27wKL96Y

The gamble didn't pay off this time, but it was worth a punt - just about.

Dear team

I’m hoping you can help please - my mum received a court letter last year and i received some very helpful advise on how to respond. Link here - link

however:
1. still no response on the court case since the transfer to my local court 
2. we’ve received another letter - a new claim around the same time but for different parking tickets. 

should i:
- chase the court to find the latest on the existing claim? 
- for the new claim, follow the same process as i did for the existing claim?


new claim:

https://ibb.co/zTCMXPdv
https://ibb.co/qLwGKmKd
https://ibb.co/9HDVyrxk

Hi, firstly, thank you for all your advice to date on the FTLA site, where you have previously advised me I believe. I have just made a donation to this site to say thank you for the time you have spent advising me.

I am the owner of a vehicle which received three CNs from VCS in July 2024 for stopping three times in 13 minutes at Bristol airport. 

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...l-airport/

The court date is 24th February and I would be grateful for any advice as to anything else I should be prepared for on the day. I have submitted my witness statement and it can be seen in the attached link. I have received advice on the other site but would appreciate your views if you would like to offer them as you have been kindly advising me from the beginning.

The WS from the claimant is here in Documents One, two and three:

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folde...vvHQMCIAWi

I was supposed to submit my WS by 20th January but did not do so until 2nd February.

Many thanks

Hi, I had unresolved issue from another forum which the link to is here: *click*

PCN was received in London, Beckton Retail Park on 27/05/2024.

I have done everything that was advised by @b789 and received this on the 30th of January: https://ibb.co/hxfV4qLg

I am seeking help for my next steps.

Hi, I am coming from another forum of the unresolved issue about a UKPC PCN at Friern Barnet Retail Park.

The link to the original thread is here: *click*


I have appealed the PCN and used a template provided by @b789 saying I am not obliged to provide the driver's details and below is the response I have received from them.


This my last reply on the original thread: 

"Hi, I have received this email on the 8th of January and didn't notice it until now.

It went to spam for some reason, which is the reason why I missed this email. https://ibb.co/8DcpPtLV "

Hi there

I posted on another forum about this and got some great advice but the thread seems to have gone 'cold' with no replies, but there have been some developments. Here's the current situation:

PCN issued in March 2025 - I am the keeper but wasn't the driver at the time. 
I ignored all the correspondence until suddenly I received a notice of Simple Procedure from the Sherriff Court. 
I disputed their claim and attended a case management discussion call last month. 
The solicitor (Pollock Fairbridge) did not attend the call but gave notice that they were unavailable. 
The Sherriff suggested I just pay the original principal sum of £100 to get this settled, but I said I'd prefer not to as I was not the driver and therefore not liable. 
The Sherriff warned that if we didn't settle, this could go to an evidential hearing. 
Another case management discussion has been scheduled for March 'to give both parties time to come to an agreement'. 

I emailed PF to ask them to withdraw the claim as I was not the driver. I received the following response:

Thank you for your email.
If you wish to settle this claim then our client will accept the principal sum, being £160.00.
If we are unable to agree settlement then our client has instructed that we continue with the claim. At the next Case Management Discussion we will seek an Evidential Hearing.
In the meantime, we attach a List of Evidence which we are lodging with Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

...Do I just double down and let them get to evidential hearing (would that involve legal costs?) 

I genuinely was not in the car at the time, so I don't see how they can provide evidence that I was? 

The 'evidence' they attached is copies of their correspondence (demands for money) and a photo of the car - no signs in the photo. And a copy of the wording in the car park on signage. 

I'm actually fuming, as their response is so snotty and describes the £160 as the 'principal sum' when actually that's the combination of their 'fine' plus a £60 'debt recovery fee' 

Any thoughts welcome!

Continuation of thread from another forum for the  attention of B789, I extract the salient parts of our conversation and paste below. They have replied to letter you asked me to write them. Seeking next steps as not sure how to interpret their message.

I initially wrote:

The Bewl Water FAQ itself says parking is charged from 08:00:

https://www.bewlwater.co.uk/faq/

Registered keeper has now received a £100 PCN from First Parking LLP for Bewl Water.

The notice says the car entered at 06:46 and left at 09:17 (151 minutes). The allegation is that payment wasn’t made for the full duration.

The alleged driver has a Ringo receipt showing payment from 08:03–09:03. The car left at 09:17.

So it looks like 3 minutes late to start and 14 minutes over at the end. But surely there should be a grace period either side?

It’s highly confusing – the website itself shows 08:00, which is exactly why payment wasn’t made before then. Registered keeper has no idea what this clear signage is outside Bewl Water about private land that letter aludes to. Keeper is only aware that there is on grounds parking which begins at 08:00 which was largely respected.

To make things worse, the letter is dated 17/09/2025, but it was only found on the doormat this morning (27/09/2025). It says the £100 full charge must be paid by 01/10/2025 at 11:42am, which doesn’t leave much time to deal with it properly.

How does this add up to a £100 bill? It makes no sense at all.

https://ibb.co/NgxGH8K8

B789 reply:

Send the following email to First Parking by first class post and get a free certificate of posting from any post office to First Parking LLP, 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC1N 3AX:

Quote
Subject: Formal complaint – Breach of PPSCoP 8.1.1(d) and KADOE (Keeper liability misrepresented at Bewl Water)

Dear First Parking LLP Complaints Team,

I write as the registered keeper in relation to Parking Charge Notice [PCN ref], issued at Bewl Water on 17/09/2025.

Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) states or implies that you are able to hold me (the Keeper) liable under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). That statement is incorrect for this location and places you in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), section 8.1.1(d). As you know, a breach of the PPSCoP is also a breach of your DVLA KADOE contract.

Why PoFA keeper liability cannot apply at Bewl Water
PoFA Sch 4 excludes “relevant land” where parking is “subject to statutory control” (Sch 4, para 3(1)(c) and 3(3)).

Bewl Water is a statutory reservoir/undertaking created and governed by specific legislation, including:

• Medway Water (Bewl Bridge Reservoir) Act 1968 (local Act establishing the scheme; authorising works and land acquisition).
• Reservoirs Act 1975 (statutory safety regime imposing duties on the undertaker for inspection, maintenance and emergency planning).

The presence of this statutory framework means the land is under statutory control for PoFA purposes, irrespective of present operational or ownership arrangements.

References (official sources)

• PoFA 2012]Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch 4, para 3(1)(c), 3(3):
• Medway Water (Bewl Bridge Reservoir) Act 1968 (1968 c. xxxiii) (official PDF available)
• Reservoirs Act 1975: legislation.gov.uk

Breach of PPSCoP and KADOE
PPSCoP 8.1.1(d) requires that operators must not state or imply that keeper liability applies where Schedule 4 does not. By asserting PoFA keeper liability at Bewl Water, your NtK misrepresents the legal position. This is a Code breach and, consequently, a breach of the DVLA’s KADOE terms, which require adherence to the applicable Code as a condition of data access.

Required remedies
As this is a formal complaint, please confirm within 14 days how you will rectify this compliance failure. At minimum, I expect you to:

1. Cancel PCN [PCN ref] and confirm in writing that no keeper liability is pursued at Bewl Water.
2. Cease and correct all NtK templates and website wording for sites under statutory control to remove any assertion (or implication) of PoFA keeper liability.
3. Conduct an immediate audit of outstanding NtKs issued for Bewl Water (and any other sites under statutory control) and notify affected keepers accordingly.
4. Provide details of staff guidance/training updates to prevent recurrence.

If you do not provide a satisfactory response, I will escalate this complaint to the British Parking Association and to the DVLA for investigation of a PPSCoP/KADOE breach.

Your published complaints policy states complaints must be submitted by post. For the avoidance of doubt, I will only accept your response by post or by email (your choice). Do not require telephone contact, web portals or third-party platforms for complaint handling or evidence review. Please treat this email as a formal complaint and provide your written response by [date – 14 days from today].

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]

[Postal address]
[Email]
Registered Keeper of vehicle [VRM]
PCN: [reference]

---

I sent the above. The following response was received on 05/02/2026 via email.  3 attachments of CCTV of car and one attachment called Parking Charge Notice (the usual stuff they send through the door)

Good Afternoon,



Thank you for your letter received 04/02/2026



Parking Charge refs: FP481691

Complaint ref: A39065



Your complaint has been referred to myself for review, please see my findings below:



Parking Charge FP481691 issued on 11/09/2025 at Bewl Water
Contravention – Not paid for the full duration of stay or not registering your vehicle
The vehicle with registration X15RAK was observed via the ANPR cameras entering site on 11/09/2025 at 06:46 and leaving on 11/09/2025 at 09:17. Total time on site 2 hours, 31 minutes, and 39 seconds. (Photographic evidence attached)
First Parking applied to the DVLA to request registered keeper details on 15/09/2025
DVLA keeper details received on 17/09/2025 and Notice to Keeper printed and posted on 17/09/2025. (please see attached)
As no payment, appeal or transfer of liability was received within 28 days of our initial correspondence, the case was referred to our appointed debt collectors on 23/10/2025.
DCBL are now administering the debt on behalf of First Parking


I have reviewed the photographic evidence, and I am satisfied that the Parking Charge was issued correctly and in accordance with the Code of Practice.



There is clear and sufficient signage on site advising motorists of the terms and conditions.

First Parking has processed the parking charge correctly and in line with the Code of Practice.



Due to non-payment, it was referred to debt collection on the 23/10/2025 and DCBL are now administering the debt on our behalf.



To answer the points in your letter:



The land on which your car was observed via ANPR camera’s is private land. Only the water/reservoir is governed by Medway Water/Southern Water.



Bewl Water is primarily managed and operated as a private leisure facility by the Elite Leisure Collection(part of the Markerstudy Group) since 2015, although the reservoir itself remains owned by the utility company Southern Water. The recreational grounds are privately managed.

•          Leisure & Operations: The leisure facilities, including fishing, water sports, and the aqua park, are managed by Elite Leisure Collection.

•          Water Authority: The reservoir and its water resources are controlled by Southern Water, serving as a vital public water source for Kent and East Sussex.



The parking charge has been issued under PoFA and is compliant.



In summary, I am satisfied the parking charge had been issued correctly at the time and in accordance with the signage in situ.



We have reached the end of our complaint process, and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint.



Yours Sincerely,



Kelly Arnold

Account Manager

 UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking is allowed with Disabled Badge–Snowhill Retail Park,Wakefield,WF1 2DF

Hi all,

I’ve finally received the decision from POPLA and, as predicted by @b789 , it was unsuccessful. The assessor seems to have brushed aside the legal arguments quite dismissively.

Key points from the Assessor’s summary:

PoFA/Late Service: He claimed that because I provided no "evidence" of the late delivery (other than my statement), the 14-day rule was met based on the "date of issue."

Jopson v Homeguard: He dismissed this entirely, stating it is "not a Supreme Court case and does not set the precedent." He also claimed no evidence of loading was provided.

Equality Act: He stated that UKPC wouldn't have been aware of the disability at the time and that POPLA cannot determine if discrimination occurred as only a court can do that.

Consideration Period: He ruled that because the vehicle was not in a marked bay, no consideration period applies at all.

I have now received a demand from UKPC for £100, threatening debt recovery and an extra £70 charge if not paid within 28 days and counting (rec'd 29/1/26) - so the clock is ticking.

I am still standing my ground as per the advice here. What are my next steps? Do I simply ignore the inevitable "Debt Recovery Plus" letters and wait for a Letter Before Claim, or is there a specific "Rejection of POPLA Decision" letter I should send to UKPC?

Many thanks,

Rob.

(02-11-2026, 02:02 PM)rhbmcse Wrote: UKPC Parking-Parked in an area where no parking is allowed with Disabled Badge–Snowhill Retail Park,Wakefield,WF1 2DF

Hi all,
I’ve finally received the decision from POPLA and, as predicted by @b789 , it was unsuccessful. The assessor seems to have brushed aside the legal arguments quite dismissively.

Key points from the Assessor’s summary:
PoFA/Late Service: He claimed that because I provided no "evidence" of the late delivery (other than my statement), the 14-day rule was met based on the "date of issue."
Jopson v Homeguard: He dismissed this entirely, stating it is "not a Supreme Court case and does not set the precedent." He also claimed no evidence of loading was provided.
Equality Act: He stated that UKPC wouldn't have been aware of the disability at the time and that POPLA cannot determine if discrimination occurred as only a court can do that.
Consideration Period: He ruled that because the vehicle was not in a marked bay, no consideration period applies at all.
I have now received a demand from UKPC for £100, threatening debt recovery and an extra £70 charge if not paid within 28 days and counting (rec'd 29/1/26) - so the clock is ticking.
I am still standing my ground as per the advice here. What are my next steps? Do I simply ignore the inevitable "Debt Recovery Plus" letters and wait for a Letter Before Claim, or is there a specific "Rejection of POPLA Decision" letter I should send to UKPC?

Many thanks,
Rob.

****
Previous history summary for information:

---

Case Summary: UKPC v. myself 
Location: Snowhill Retail Park, Wakefield (WF1 2DF) 
Vehicle Registration: redacted
Contravention Date: 17/10/2025 
Alleged Breach: "No roadway parking" (Not parked within a marked bay)

1. The Incident

• Duration: 1 minute, 5 seconds (recorded by ANPR).
  
• Context: The driver (a Blue Badge holder) stopped briefly on the roadway to load heavy pre-ordered goods.
  
• Mitigation: All disabled bays were full (some occupied by non-badge holders). The Blue Badge was clearly displayed and is visible in UKPC’s own evidence.
  

2. Procedural History & Initial Appeal

• Notice to Keeper (NtK): Dated 25/10/2025 but not received until 07/11/2025 (21 days after the event).
  
• Initial Appeal: Submitted to UKPC as Keeper. Challenged based on PoFA 14-day non-compliance and the display of the Blue Badge.
  
• Rejection: UKPC rejected the appeal and issued a "Final Reminder" before the POPLA stage.
  

3. POPLA Appeal (Assessor: redacted) An appeal was submitted citing:

• PoFA 2012: Failure to deliver the NtK within the 14-day relevant period.
  
• Jopson v Homeguard [2016]: Argument that "loading is not parking."
  
• Equality Act 2010: Failure to provide reasonable adjustments for a disabled driver.
  
• De Minimis: The 65-second duration is too trivial to constitute a contract breach.
  

4. POPLA Decision (Unsuccessful - 29/01/2026) The assessor dismissed the appeal on the following grounds:

• PoFA: Ruled that the PCN was "issued" within 14 days and deemed served. Stated the appellant provided no evidence of late receipt.
  
• Jopson v Homeguard: Dismissed the case as not being a "Supreme Court" case and claimed no evidence was provided that loading actually occurred.
  
• Equality Act: Claimed the operator could not have known about the disability at the time of issuance and that POPLA cannot adjudicate on discrimination.
  
• Consideration Period: Ruled that because the car was not in a bay, a consideration period does not apply.
  

5. Current Status

• Demand: UKPC has issued a demand for £100 (dated 29/01/2026).
  
• Threats: They have threatened to pass the matter to debt recovery with an additional £70 charge if not paid within 28 days.
  
• Position: I am maintaining the "registered keeper" position and have not identified the driver. I intend to continue defending this based on the original expert advice that this would likely be struck out or discontinued if it reaches the County Court stage.