Pcn from Euro car parks

[Tee06]

Hi everyone. Would appreciate if someone helps critique my response. I am helping a friend out. He is the keeper but actually not the driver of the vehicle. Apparently the driver over stayed by 45 mins. I went through the site and notice two responses fitted it the most. This one below and another that I will post in a few minutes. Thank your time..


Dear Sirs,
I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx
You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give the invitation as prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.
There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.
I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.
Yours etc

[Tee06]

I am the keeper of car VRM xxxxx and am in receipt of your PCN XXXXX.




Your reason for issuing the PCN was that no payment was made. As this car park is signed as being free for the first 3 hours this alleged breach of failing to pay for a stay of 45 minutes, as evidenced by your own PCN, can only be described as an absolute nonsense.







You have also failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.




Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

[Tee06]

They are quite similar, but was thinking one maybe more accurate than the other. I have attached pcn letter

[ostell]

Take down that PCN and repost after removing the VRM

Use the simpler appeal.

There are other failures in that PCN. You will use them when they reject your appeal and you then appeal to POPLA

[Tee06]

Great, thank you

[alexobi]

Can i just confirm that the section 9 (e) is covered by that PCN? i have received the same letter and i'm trying to figure out whether this appeal is actually valid..?

[ostell]

No, 9 (2) (e) is not there, 9 (2) (f) is. If you need help then start your own thread