Danish Court Slams Parking Firms Over Late Fees

Maria van der Vliet

Writer

January 14, 2026
10:43 am

Denmark’s High Court has ruled that parking companies must prove their reminder letters actually reach drivers, marking a major win for motorists disputing extra fees.

High Court Sides with Motorist in Europark Case

After four years of legal battles, a Danish driver, Anita Sandkvist, finally received confirmation from the Western High Court that she does not have to pay additional late fees to Europark. The court reaffirmed an earlier decision from a lower court that parking companies must be able to document that they have sent and delivered reminder letters before charging any extra fees.

The ruling has drawn wide attention as it challenges how companies handle disputed parking fines. The decision reinforces that simply claiming reminders were sent is no longer enough.

Background of the Dispute

The case began in September 2021 when Sandkvist received a parking ticket near Vejle Station. The original fine itself was valid, but she says she never received follow-up letters demanding payment. Nearly four months later, she unexpectedly received a collection notice claiming she had ignored multiple reminders she insists never arrived.

Because of that, she took the matter to court, arguing that Europark should prove that those reminder letters reached her. In 2021, Europark had changed its letter delivery service, and during that period, more than 130 other drivers also reported not getting their reminders. All of them filed similar complaints to the Danish Consumer Ombudsman.

Consumer Advocates Call It a Key Decision

According to FDM, the Danish motorists’ organization, this ruling is extremely important. The court stated that the sender bears full responsibility for proving that letters have been delivered to the correct recipient.

In practice, this means that companies can no longer rely only on saying the reminders were sent. They must now have clear evidence of delivery. That could include tracking data, confirmation from post services, or using secure digital inboxes such as E-boks.

Missed Opportunity to Secure Proof

Interestingly, the court found that Europark could have obtained proof of delivery from its postal service provider, Bladkompagniet. The provider keeps delivery records for three months. If Europark had requested those records in time, the company could have verified whether the letters were delivered. However, it failed to do so.

Consumer advocates say this lack of documentation now serves as a warning for all parking firms in Denmark. The High Court ruling makes it clear that the burden of proof lies solely with the sender, not the consumer. Without sufficient evidence of delivery, drivers cannot be charged additional fees or taken to collections.

Impact on Future Parking Disputes

As a result of this decision, parking operators may need to change how they communicate with customers. Many are expected to use digital platforms moving forward. Sending reminders through E-boks would create a record of delivery that courts can verify.

Legal experts also see this case as a sign that future disputes will become easier for drivers to win when documentation is missing. It strengthens consumer protection standards in Denmark and pressures companies to make their billing systems more transparent.

Europark and Industry Reaction

Europark’s parent company, Apcoa, responded by saying it is reviewing the High Court’s reasoning. The company expressed surprise that the court did not accept mail from a government-approved postal service as sufficient proof of delivery.

Despite that, the ruling signals a shift across the parking industry. It emphasizes that companies must establish reliable procedures for confirming that customers actually receive payment reminders before issuing late fees or engaging debt collectors.

For Danish motorists who have faced silent charges or unexplained debts, the case sets a new legal standard. It could help others challenge questionable billing practices and encourage fairer treatment in future parking fines controversies.