Parking Charge Notice sent to Registered Keeper After 14 days

Any thoughts or amendments on this as the "Motorist's Comments" on the evidence for POPLA?

I am commenting on this as the Registered Keeper. The charge notice sent to me as the Registered Keeper alleges that the driver incurred a parking charge from April 17th 2026. On private land, which this is, only the driver can be held liable for the charge. As already stated, the driver is unidentified therefore this charge can not be enforced.

The charge has been issued to the Registered Keeper because the driver is unidentified. In order for the Registered Keeper to be held liable under ‘Keeper Liability’ then Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) must be adhered to ( ).

The BPA’s statement on Keeper Liability ( ), of which the Operator is a member, states that “On private land, and this includes private land owned by public bodies, it is the DRIVER who is liable for any charges arising from a trespass or for not complying with the rules for parking which, in most cases, is simply a breach of contract. And it is the driver who is trespassing or breaches the contract.”

It goes on to explain the only way in which the Operator could then proceed against the Registered Keeper instead: “The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 does not alter this fundamental principle of DRIVER liability. What it does do, importantly, is to allow proceedings against the registered keeper for unpaid parking charges when the creditor, usually the landowner or their agent the parking operator, DOES NOT KNOW WHO THE DRIVER WAS at the time.”

However, the operator’s evidence in the Case History section shows that they are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act as per this line:

04/05/2026
DVLA response received - Success (Legislation Used: NonPOFA_POPLA - Issued To: Keeper)

Therefore, as already stated, there is no pathway for the Operator to transfer the liability for the charge onto the Registered Keeper.

Even if the Operator had made use of the POFA, they failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4. The notice was dated May 4th which was 17 days after the alleged parking charge was due and then there were the additional 3 days before the notice was delivered which is a total of 20 days. The Notice to Keeper was not served within the statutory timeframe required under Paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4 (14 days) therefore Keeper Liability does not apply in this case.

In the BPA’s own words: “The creditor must follow the procedures set out in PoFA Schedule 4 to achieve the benefits of 'keeper liability' as described.”

As already stated, I am the registered keeper and I am not liable for this charge. The operator has not identified the driver and liability cannot be transferred to the Registered Keeper due to non-compliance with POFA. I am appealing as the registered keeper so the appeal should be allowed and the charge cancelled.

Yes - that should do it.

With the dates this should be a slam dunk and POPLA normally realise this.

And submitted. Now to wait 6-8 weeks for the outcome...

Result! Thanks everyone for your help:

Assessor supporting rational for decision:


I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: By issuing a PCN the parking operator has implied that the terms and conditions of the private land have not been met. When an appeal is brought to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to demonstrate the breach they claim has occurred. I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant code of practice, or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN for not purchasing the appropriate parking time. I note that the appellant has submitted the appeal with the parking operator as the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle. However, no evidence has been provided to confirm the identity of the driver at the time of the parking event. Therefore, it is clear that the appeal has been made in the capacity of the registered keeper, and the driver's details have not been established. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators must follow certain rules including issuing a PCN to be received within the required timescale. In this case, the parking operator has issued the PCN outside of the required time frame. Therefore, the parking operator has failed to transfer the liability onto the registered keeper. I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for the reason above, I did not feel they required further consideration.