Help/Advice re PCN - Euro Car Parks

[StuDoc]

Hi all,

The registered keeper received a PCN from Euro Car Parks (ECP) for an alleged contravention on 3rd December 2024 in Leicester. Following an investigation, the driver believes this PCN may have been issued incorrectly.

Key Points:

• Wrong Land Operator:

The vehicle briefly entered a Euro Car Parks site but left shortly after (within minutes) due to poor parking by other cars and concerns about possible damage.

The driver then parked at the adjacent car park, which is operated by Parallel Parking Ltd. This company has confirmed in writing that they own the land and manage it using the Parkbunny app, not PayByPhone.

• Payment Sent to Euro Car Parks in Error:

Due to a long queue at the machine and being in a rush, the driver used the PayByPhone app. Location 807343 came up automatically; presumably linked to the Euro Car Parks site just exited.

Payment was made in good faith, but it turns out the car was actually parked at the Parallel Parking site, which uses Parkbunny. So, the payment mistakenly went to ECP for land not managed by them.

• Euro Car Parks Rejection Email Cites Code 680324:

ECP’s rejection email stated code 680324 should have been used. However:

• That code does not come up automatically in the PayByPhone app near either location.
• It only appears when manually searched.
• Even then, it just shows “Mansfield Street,” with no clear map or boundary indicating which car park it applies to.

Question:

Would it be appropriate to ask Euro Car Parks to provide a map or diagram showing precisely where 807343 and 680324 apply?

• CCTV Confusion:

ECP’s rejection email includes ANPR entry/exit images. This initially raised confusion because, during a site visit in April 2025, no obvious cameras were spotted at the site thought to be theirs. The concern is whether ECP can provide such images from land they do not manage.
That said, the registered keeper and driver plan to revisit the location again soon to investigate further, take fresh photos, and confirm which site the images may relate to.

• Missed POPLA Appeal Window:

The registered keeper moved out of the previous address in February 2024. From early September 2024 to 3rd April 2025, there was no communication with their ex-partner remaining at that address (due to personal matters), and therefore no access to their post.
The rejection email from ECP was also sent from a “noreply” address and was buried within unrelated email results. It was only discovered after receiving a DCBL letter on 3rd April 2025.
POPLA was contacted, but they advised the 28-day deadline had passed and the case didn’t meet the exceptional criteria for late appeal.

• Bereavement:

The registered keeper’s mother sadly passed away on 17th April 2025. DCBL paused the case for 14 days out of courtesy, but it is now active again. The latest letter is a final demand for £170.

---

The Registered Keeper and Driver’s Position:
Based on the available evidence, the driver is 99.9% certain that the vehicle was parked on land not managed by Euro Car Parks and that the PCN was issued in error. Confirmation has been received from the landowner, and supporting documentation has been gathered. The only small doubt is the entry/exit photos, which will be clarified soon.

The registered keeper and driver are fully prepared to challenge this, including in court, if necessary, but are seeking fair guidance before progressing further.

---

Questions:

1. Based on the above, does it appear the registered keeper has a strong enough case?
2. Would sending a formal appeal email directly to ECP (after their original rejection) be advisable?
    A draft letter has been prepared and is attached for review.
3. Should the registered keeper ask ECP to pinpoint both location codes (807343 and 680324) on a map to confirm which land each refers to?
4. Would it be helpful, or risky, to ask Parallel Parking Ltd for footage to confirm the vehicle was parked there? I.e. potentially risking a fine from them instead, although it would potentially be lower if paid within the 30 days, and may be worth taking that on the chin in comparison.
5. Now that DCBL is actively pursuing this again with a final demand for £170, should the registered keeper ignore it, challenge it, or pay?
    The concern is that payment may be viewed as accepting liability, which is not believed to be the case, but stress levels are a consideration.

---

Attachments (to this post)

• Original PCN Letter
• Letter drafted for Euro Car Parks

Attachments (to be referenced or included via additional post/s, where permitted):

• Rejection email from ECP
• Proof of payment made via PayByPhone
• Screenshots showing difficulty locating the email
• Confirmation from Parallel Parking Ltd
• Screenshots of app location behaviour
• Signage photos from both sites
• Photograph showing the proximity of the two adjacent car parks

Thanks in advance for any advice.

[The Registered Keeper]

[StuDoc]

Hi all,

Just to follow up, I was having trouble adding any more attachments, so I have uploaded the following files:

• Rejection email from ECP
• Proof of payment made via PayByPhone
• Screenshots showing difficulty locating the email
• Confirmation from Parallel Parking Ltd
• Screenshots of app location behaviour
• Signage photos from both sites
• Photograph showing the proximity of the two adjacent car parks

to this link here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/e1spc...=t9jwh3my&dl=0

Thanks.

Stuart

[des8]

Your DROPBOX link doesn't work!
According to the site "The owner of this link has deleted or disabled this link. You cannot access it at this time."

Could you also post up the other pages of the PCN?

[StuDoc]

Hi des8,

Thanks for your response, and sincere apologies about that. I was sure that I had changed the link correctly.

Here it is again: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/e1spc...=2oq8sbc1&dl=0. I have tested my end in incognito mode and it seems to work ok.

I have also added the two pages to this Dropbox folder instead. I assume that is what you meant when you said

Could you also post up the other pages of the PCN?

?

Thanks.

Stuart

[des8]

I am confused (easily done )

Euro Car parks have photographs of your vehicle entering the park and then leaving approx 90 minutes later, but you state the vehicle left the park shorty after entering.

Have you checked to which company the payment went.? I think you will find it is Leicester City Council

If the vehicle was parked on the neighbouring lot managed by Parallel Parking and the driver did not use Parking Bunny I am surprised you have not received a PCN from them.

I think your best hope will be if they have made an error when issuing the PCN hence I need to see the complete document.
If it goes to court there might be an opportunity to challenge the claim, or the amount being claimed on a number of points

[StuDoc]

Hi des8


Thanks again for the input; I just wanted to clarify a few points following further investigation.

• The confirmation email received after payment does not mention who the payment was made to; it simply refers to Mansfield Street
• However, after searching on the PayByPhone app, the location code used (807343) comes up as being for Leicester City Council. So although this was not clear at the time, it now appears that the payment went to them; not Euro Car Parks. Screenshot attached.
• Euro Car Parks stated in their rejection email that the correct code should have been 680324, which does show as a Euro Car Parks location when searched in the app. That code, however, was not visible anywhere at the site where the vehicle was actually parked.
• Parallel Parking Ltd have confirmed in writing that they operate the site where the vehicle was actually parked, and that their site uses Parkbunny, not PayByPhone. So neither Euro Car Parks nor Leicester City Council appear to manage the land in question.

This slightly alters the original understanding; it now appears:

• The payment was mistakenly made to Leicester City Council, not Euro Car Parks.
• Euro Car Parks never received payment, but are still issuing a PCN for land they do not operate.
• The driver never parked on their site; only briefly entered due to poor parking before leaving and using the adjacent car park (confirmed in writing as not theirs).

I realise this weakens the original argument that Euro Car Parks received the payment in error, but the central issue remains: Euro Car Parks are pursuing a parking charge for land they do not appear to control. This still seems to undermine the legal basis for the charge.

I will be updating the formal appeal letter accordingly to reflect this. Although Euro Car Parks did not receive the payment, they are still pursuing a PCN for land that does not appear to be under their control. I believe this remains a valid and potentially strong defence.

I would appreciate any thoughts on whether this still stands up as a solid case.

Thanks.

Registered Keeper

[StuDoc]

Note: Deleted this post as it seemed to duplicate my previous response, but there doesn't seem to be an option to delete the post available.

[des8]

Two questions:
. How have Euro Car parks photographs of your vehicle entering the park and then leaving approx 90 minutes later?
Have you asked Euro Car Parks for proof they have authority to manage car parking on this site?

Also it seems a little odd that Parallel Parking haven't chased you for an unpaid parking charge

[StuDoc]

Thanks again, des8; and yes, this is exactly what has been confusing the driver and the registered keeper.

The driver is 99.9% certain they moved from one site to the other; briefly entering what appears to be the Euro Car Parks site, then leaving shortly after due to poor parking and limited space, before parking on the adjacent land (confirmed to be managed by Parallel Parking Ltd).

It is also strange that Euro Car Parks have entry and exit photos, showing a stay of around 90 minutes, when the vehicle was not parked there for more than a couple of minutes. The only explanation the driver & registered keeper can think of is that a warden; possibly employed across both sites, may have taken the images or recorded the vehicle, but this is speculative.

The driver has considered contacting Parallel Parking Ltd to ask whether they have any record of the vehicle being on their land at the relevant time, based on ANPR, warden logs, or other systems. The registered keeper accepts that this might lead to a PCN being issued by Parallel Parking Ltd instead, but would rather that than pay £170 to a company that appears to be enforcing a charge on land they do not manage. What would be your advice on this?

To answer your question: no, Euro Car Parks have not been asked to provide proof of authority to manage this specific site. That could well be worth doing.

The photos provided by Euro Car Parks also do not appear to match either of the car parks exactly; though this needs to be verified again in person, hopefully tomorrow. It may be that the images are from a location just outside the entrance/exit, or from a shared area. The registered keeper will check this closely and update.

It’s getting complex now — a payment was made to Leicester City Council (unintentionally), Euro Car Parks issued the PCN, and the land actually seems to belong to Parallel Parking. The driver made a genuine attempt to pay, but this appears to have been misdirected due to overlapping signage and unclear site boundaries.

Appreciate all the input so far; this really is helping to piece it together.

[des8]

You could ascertain ownership of the respective plots by consulting Land Registry.
They have a mapping search facility which might help you.
This will identify the current owners, from whom you might be able to confirm that both parking companies have relevant contracts to manage the respective plots.

The problem with using the argument of leaving the site, is that you appear to have no proof.
Showing the photos are inaccurate could help, but getting Parallel Parking on side would be even better!

No point in appealing to DCBL, who are solely debt collectors and only want your money.
Eventually their sidekick, DCB LEGAL who are a firm of solicitors, will take over and eventually initiate court action if you don't pay up.

That's a whole different ball game, and they can be defeated.
Sometimes negotiate a settlement, often they withdraw at the last moment and sometimes they are defeated in court.

[StuDoc]

Thanks again for the detailed reply, des8 ; much appreciated.

Just to update following further investigation:

• The confirmation email following payment does not state who the payment was made to; it only refers to Mansfield Street.”
• However, after speaking directly with PayByPhone support, they confirmed that the location code used (807343) is linked to Leicester City Council, not Euro Car Parks.
• They also confirmed that the location code (680324) referenced in their rejection email is indeed for Euro Car Parks.
• Both codes appear in the app with almost identical names, simply Leicester Mansfield Street, which adds to the confusion.
• The support agent was helpful and confirmed that a payment had been made. He said he would escalate the matter internally to see whether the PCN could be cancelled from their end and that they would get back to me within 24 hours.

In the meantime, an email has also been sent to Parallel Parking Ltd to ask whether they have any records of the vehicle being on their site at the relevant time.

I still find it odd that Euro Car Parks appear to have entry/exit images, which seems inconsistent with the layout of the area. One possible explanation is that a shared warden operates both sites; but I plan to return to Leicester shortly to investigate this further and clarify the situation on the ground.

Also, just to clarify; I am not attempting to appeal via DCBL. I understand they are simply the debt collectors. My intention with my letter was to correspond directly with Euro Car Parks, as they are the original issuer of the PCN. If they agree to cancel it, my hope is that they will then instruct DCBL to cease collection activity.

Thanks again for your time and advice. I will continue to post updates as things develop.

[des8]

Well good luck, and look forward to updates

[StuDoc]

Hi all, I just wanted to post a quick update to close this off.

The registered keeper and driver recently returned to Leicester to revisit both sites and take additional photos. While the driver and registered keeper continue to dispute that the vehicle was parked on Euro Car Parks' land, and maintains that it was moved to the adjacent site operated by Parallel Parking, Euro Car Parks' timestamped ANPR images show both an entry and exit. That final exit image has unfortunately made it very difficult to argue the case, even though the driver clearly remembers moving and not staying parked in that location. The photos they took, do seem to match the layout at the entry and exit of Euro Car Parks land, although difficult to understand why they would have an exit image one and a half hours later, when driver clearly remembers moving tro another on this occasion, as it would have normally been a car park that he stayed at, as used many times before.

This matter escalated over the last week. The debt was passed from DCBL to DCB Legal, who are their litigation solicitors. Following the advice previously offered by des8, thank you again: the registered keeper contacted DCB Legal to open a negotiation.

While the aim had been to settle for less, ideally around 50% of the inflated charge, the outcome was that the registered keeper was able to negotiate it back to the original £100 (the amount it was after the original rejection email and pre-debt recovery escalation to £170). Given the time already spent gathering evidence and the emotional and administrative burden, the registered keeper has now chosen to settle this amount.

Although the registered keeper and driver still strongly feel the PCN was not valid, and that the vehicle was not parked on Euro Car Parks’ land, the combination of unclear signage, the confusing app setup, and the presence of timestamped ANPR images made it feel like a losing battle; or at the very least, one not worth the further stress and risk of court.

Sometimes the fight is just not worth continuing, even if you believe you are right, because you have to take a step back and realise what your time is worth.

Thanks again to everyone who offered advice, particularly des8 . Your insight on the litigation handover to DCB Legal and the opportunity to negotiate was really helpful, and in the end, acted upon.

Much appreciated,

[des8]

Thanks for the update and fully understand the reason for settling