However, it seems that the PCN wording in section Protection Of Freedoms Act is compliant with PoFA 2012, or am I missing something?
Have a read of paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA and show me where there is an invitation or anything that means the same as "invites" the keeper to pay the charge.
PoFA 2012 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted)
Here is a little précis I wrote a while ago that explains the failure:
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) failures
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012
This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:
An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient. The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.
Non-Compliance Issue
If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests that payment is required, without an explicit invitation directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.
Significance of Full Compliance
Strict Liability: The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012.
Partial or Substantial Compliance Insufficient: Even if the notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial compliance — every element as specified in the legislation must be present and correct.
Consequences for the Operator
Challenge Basis: If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking charge.
Keeper Liability: The operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly weaken their case if the notice to the driver or other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.
Conclusion
In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012. Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any obligation to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal response to the charge.
Here is a suggested initial appeal to PE:
Subject: Formal Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference Number]
I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle in relation to the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice (PCN), which was issued for an alleged parking contravention at Barnet Hospital on 30th September. The Notice to Keeper (NtK), dated 7th October, does not provide sufficient evidence of a parking contravention at a specific location or indicate a clear breach of terms and conditions.
Grounds for Appeal:
1. Payment Was Made for Parking:
A payment of £2.15 for parking was made, as reflected in a bank statement dated 2 October. This payment covered the appropriate parking duration. The payment was made in accordance with the pay-on-exit system at the hospital, where the vehicle registration number is entered, and the fee is calculated accordingly. The lack of a receipt function at the payment machines makes it impossible to provide additional documentation, but the bank statement confirms that the relevant parking fee was paid.
2. Confusing Signage and Unclear Markings:
The parking layout at Barnet Hospital consists of a complex network of interconnected spaces with inconsistent signage. While some areas are designated for staff parking, these zones are not clearly separated from public parking areas, and the signage is not always prominently displayed. Any alleged contravention would likely be due to the confusing and inadequate signage rather than a deliberate breach of parking terms.
3. Lack of Evidence of a Specific Contravention:
The images provided in the PCN show the vehicle in motion but do not demonstrate that it was parked in a prohibited area or indicate the specific location where the alleged contravention occurred. Without evidence showing a clear breach of parking terms and conditions, there is no basis for holding the registered keeper liable for the charge.
4. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):
The PCN fails to comply with the requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, specifically paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), which mandates an explicit invitation for the registered keeper to either pay the unpaid parking charge or provide the name and address of the driver. The notice does not contain any such invitation or equivalent wording. Instead, it merely outlines the consequences if the charge is not paid, which does not satisfy the legal requirement. As the registered keeper, I am not liable under PoFA for this parking charge due to this non-compliance.
Request for Evidence and Cancellation of the PCN:
In light of the above points, I respectfully request that the charge be cancelled. Should you reject this appeal, I request the following:
• Clear evidence of the location where the vehicle was allegedly parked in breach of terms.
• Photographic evidence of relevant signage in the area, showing the restrictions in place.
• A copy of the parking terms and conditions applicable at the time of the alleged contravention.
• A detailed explanation of how the charge is justified despite the payment made.
If the appeal is not upheld, please provide a POPLA code so that I may escalate this matter to the independent appeals service.