This is the appellants response to the operators evidence.
The keeper was not the driver and is under no obligation to identify the driver. This was stated clearly in the appeal. The operator has completely failed to engage with this or provide any evidence as to the identity of the driver. Nothing in PoFA allows the assumption that the keeper was the driver, and no such inference is permitted, as made clear in the persuasive appellate case of VCS v Edward (2023).
The appeal also clearly explained that no Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued following the Notice to Driver (NtD). This is a key requirement under Paragraph 8 of PoFA if the operator wishes to transfer liability to the keeper. There is nothing in the operator’s evidence pack to suggest a NtK was ever issued. They have completely ignored this point. Without a PoFA-compliant NtK served within the correct timeframe, there is no keeper liability. This alone is fatal to their case.
The appeal pointed out that the NtD fails to specify a “period of parking” as required by Paragraph 7(2)(a) of PoFA. The ZatPark report included in their evidence confirms this, explicitly stating “Observed from: N/A”, “Observed to: N/A”, and “Observed for: N/A”. Their own timestamped photos span just 10 seconds — this is not a period of parking. They have not addressed this at all, let alone explained how a contract could be formed in under 10 seconds, or how the driver could have read, understood, and accepted any terms.
The appeal also raised the issue of whether a contract could have been formed at all, due to the lack of any meaningful evidence that the driver had time to consider the terms. Again, completely ignored. No response from the operator.
The operator relies on signage to claim a contract existed, but their evidence undermines this. They include four facsimile images of signs, which are not photographs of signs in situ. These are mock-ups, not proof of what a driver would have seen. The £100 charge is buried deep in a dense block of small text, not highlighted at all. This is contrary to the Beavis ruling, which was based on the charge being clearly and prominently displayed.
The actual photos of signs that they do include are even worse for them. The signs are high up, weathered, and unreadable — even in their own close-up shots. If the operator can’t provide a clear image in optimal conditions, then it’s clear that a driver on the ground would have no chance of reading and understanding the terms. These signs fail the test in PoFA paragraph 2(2) which states:
"The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land)."
and
Paragraph 2(3) which states:
For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by—
(a)the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or
(b)where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which—
(i)specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii)are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.
of being “adequately brought to the attention” of the motorist.
They also include in their evidence pack, a Google Earth-style satellite view with a green line and four yellow dots but provide no explanation of what these mean. There is no key, no annotation, and it’s not clear how this is relevant. This is not evidence.
Finally, the operator misstates the law, either deliberately or due to utter incompetence, when they say that because the DVLA provided the keeper’s details, the keeper must identify the driver. This is legally wrong. The DVLA provides details for the purpose of issuing notices, not to presume liability. There is no requirement for the keeper to identify the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn from their silence.
In short, the operator’s evidence fails to rebut any of the appeal points. They have ignored the lack of a NtK, ignored the absence of a period of parking, ignored the question of contract formation, and relied on signage that their own evidence shows is unreadable. They have misrepresented the law on keeper liability and have not provided any legitimate basis to pursue the keeper.
This appeal must be allowed.
Dear POPLA assessor, The appellant is the registered keeper and is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. The operator has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and therefore keeper liability does not apply. As such, the burden remains with the operator to prove who was driving. The POPLA assessor is reminded that no adverse inference may be drawn from the keeper’s silence, and no assumption may be made that the keeper was the driver.
The appellant is the registered keeper and is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. The operator has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and therefore keeper liability does not apply. As such, the burden remains with the operator to prove who was driving. The POPLA assessor is reminded that no adverse inference may be drawn from the keeper’s silence, and no assumption may be made that the keeper was the driver. This position is supported by persuasive authority in VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C], where the court confirmed that the Protection of Freedoms Act does not create any presumption that the registered keeper was the driver, and that to infer such a link in the absence of evidence would be wrong in law.
1. Non-compliant Notice to Driver – Breach of PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 7(2)(a)
The operator issued a Notice to Driver (NtD) on 15 February 2025, which purports to rely on PoFA for keeper liability. However, the NtD fails to comply with the mandatory requirement in Paragraph 7(2)(a), which states that the NtD must:“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
In this case, the NtD merely stated an “observed time from: N/A” and an “observed time to: 10:40”, with no measurable or defined period of parking. This omission is fatal to PoFA compliance under Paragraph 7(2)(a), which requires the notice to specify a “period of parking”. A single point in time does not demonstrate how long the vehicle remained on site, nor whether the driver stayed beyond the minimum consideration period typically required to review signage and decide whether to accept the terms. Without any evidence of duration, it is not possible to establish whether a parking contract could have been formed at all.
This position is supported by the persuasive appellate judgment in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions 2023) [H6DP632H], where HHJ Mitchell confirmed that a timestamp or single photograph cannot satisfy the requirement to specify a “period of parking”. He emphasised that a parking event must involve a period of time, however short, and that a momentary presence does not demonstrate acceptance of any terms. Without such evidence, no contractual liability arises, and no keeper liability can flow under PoFA.
2. No Notice to Keeper Given Within the Relevant Period – PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4) and 8(5)
As a NtD was issued, the operator must serve a Notice to Keeper (NtK) that complies with PoFA Paragraph 8. Paragraph 8(4) requires that the NtK be given (i.e. delivered) within the “relevant period” defined in Paragraph 8(5), which is the 28 days following the expiry of 28 days from the day after the NtD was given.• NtD issued: 15 February 2025
• Relevant period ends: 12 April 2025
• As 12 April 2025 falls on a Saturday, and deemed service applies only on working days, the last date for posting a NtK (to be deemed delivered on time) would be Wednesday, 9 April 2025.
As of the date of this appeal (9 April 2025), no NtK has been received, and none could now be served in time. Any NtK posted now would be deemed delivered after the relevant period ends, and thus fail the requirements of Paragraph 8(4).
3. No Evidence That a Contract Could Have Been Formed
The operator has also failed to demonstrate that a parking contract could have been formed. The absence of a recorded period of parking means there is no evidence that the vehicle remained on site for longer than the minimum consideration period — the industry-standard period during which a driver is entitled to read and consider the terms displayed on signage before deciding whether to accept the contractual terms and remain parked. A brief presence on site, evidenced only by a single timestamp, is not sufficient to demonstrate acceptance of contractual terms. The burden rests with the operator to show that the driver had time and opportunity to consider the terms and chose to remain, thereby forming a contract. In the absence of such evidence, no contract could have been formed, and no liability — contractual or statutory — can arise.
Conclusion
As the Notice to Driver was non-compliant under Paragraph 7(2)(a), and no valid Notice to Keeper has been given within the timeframe required by Paragraph 8 and that there is absolutely no evidence that a contract was entered into by the conduct of the driver, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper. The appeal must therefore be allowed.
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement, and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
Your Notice to Driver (NtD) fails to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Specifically, it does not specify a "period of parking", only an instant in time. As a result, you cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper. The burden of proving who was driving does not rest with the keeper, and there will be no admission as to the identity of the driver. No assumptions or inferences can be made in this regard.
Since liability cannot be established against the keeper, you must either pursue the driver (who I am under no legal obligation to identify) or cancel this charge. Should you choose to reject this appeal, I require you to provide a full explanation of how you believe the NtD complies with PoFA in every respect.
Elite Park Management have no hope at POPLA and so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Please do not redact any dates.
And another issue of the £100 been hidden in the small print.Yes... but they will not consider that at initial appeal stage. That can be considered at POPLA and, if necessary at court.