Perfect. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) ever issued, therefore no Keeper liability. Whilst there are multiple other points of appeal such as no contact formed due to prohibitive signage, delivery (loading and unloading) is not parking, no period of parking recorded which is another PoFA breach and more, the single fact that PoFA has not been complied with, means that there is no case to answer for the Keeper.
The POPLA appeal should concentrate on the fact that UKPC have failed to issue an NtK within the relevant period and so cannot hold the Keeper liable.
I would simply put the following in as the POPLA appeal:
This is a Keeper-only appeal. The appellant has not identified the driver at any stage and is under no legal obligation to do so.
A Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued on 28th February 2025. The Keeper appealed within 28 days, on 27th March 2025. The operator then rejected the appeal and issued a POPLA code on 17th May 2025, without ever issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK).
As the operator has not issued a NtK in accordance with Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they have failed to establish any right to hold the Keeper liable. Without compliance with PoFA, there is no lawful basis to pursue the Keeper. The identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and the operator may not rely on assumption or inference.
The appeal must therefore be upheld because the person being pursued cannot be liable for the charge in law.
Should the operator choose not to withdraw at this stage, the appellant reserves the right to rebut any further claims in their evidence pack, including but not limited to:
1. The NtD is not PoFA compliant as it fails to state a period of parking. A single observation timestamp is not sufficient, per Brennan v PPS (2023) [H6DP632H] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=xilp8wn2&dl=0).
2. The signage fails to meet PoFA 2(2) and 2(3) as it does not *ADEQUATELY* bring to the driver's attention any specific charge for breach of terms. As can be seen in the photo below, minuscule text with any mention of a charge is, for all intents and purposes, invisible.
(https://i.imgur.com/nRmP7qu.jpeg)
3. The sign is prohibitory only, saying "No Parking", and thus incapable of forming a contract. There is no offer which is the most basic requirement in any contractual relationship.
(https://i.imgur.com/d8djIqq.jpeg)
4. The NtD does not show that the vehicle remained onsite beyond the minimum consideration period, so there is no evidence that any contract was formed.
5. The vehicle was being used for loading/unloading, which is not “parking” under the persuasive authority of Jopson v Homeguard (2016) [B9GF0A9E] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ayt0unruylk8yc96qs1ku/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf?rlkey=s3bbv5ajumsw6m54zoj16sbom&st=tkcsxrvy&dl=0).
The core issue is that the person being pursued cannot be held liable, and the appeal must succeed on that basis alone.