That is from POPLA appeals that are over 10 years old. Your first point is a rambling about the Keeper not being liable to identify the driver but does not explain what that is relevant in this case.
Explain why the Keeper cannot be liable under PoFA and then you can also explain why the driver cannot be liable because there is no evidence that a contract was formed. PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) states:
A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
Where is that section complied with in the NtK? There is not even a mention of the word "period" in the NtK. Therefore, the notice is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA and so the Keeper cannot be liable.
This is backed up in persuasive case law which the POPLA assessor should be familiar with by now. In Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=g30khcux&dl=0) where it was concluded that a single timestamp does not constitute a valid "period of parking" under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
With the above established, you can then argue that there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period to show that a contract was formed with the driver. This is a critical point in challenging the enforceability of a PCN.
The PPSCoP section 5.1 explains that there must be a consideration period before a PCN can be issued. The consideration period requirements are explained in Annex B1. It is a minimum of 5 minutes unless there are more than 500 spaces in the car park, in which case it is a minimum of 10 minutes. This is to allow the driver the time required to identify and read signs that display the parking terms and conditions, or the consequences of choosing to park where public parking is not invited, the time required to identify and comply with requirements for payment and the time required for a driver to leave the controlled land if they decide not to accept the terms and conditions.
So, without a "period of parking" evidenced, there can be no driver liability or Keeper liability. You lead on those two points and then throw in signage and landowner authority as backups, just in case you get one of the more moronic POPLA assessors.
Here are some example points you could use:
1. The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by the operator fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This paragraph requires that the NtK 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 NtK merely states a single timestamp: 12:11pm on 01/05/2025. This is a point in time, not a “period of parking”. There is no start and end time, no duration, and not even a reference to the word “period” in the notice.
As confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=g30khcux&dl=0), a single timestamp alone does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The failure to specify a period of parking renders the NtK non-compliant, and therefore the operator cannot pursue the registered keeper under PoFA.
2. No evidence of contract formation due to absence of a consideration period
Even if PoFA were not engaged, the operator has provided no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver. Under Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024) (https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/sector_single_Code_of_Practice_Version_1.1_130225.pdf), a minimum consideration period must be allowed before any assumption of contractual parking can be made. This period allows the driver to read the signage, assess the terms, and decide whether to accept them. The Code states that a driver remaining on site for more than 5 minutes may be deemed to have accepted the terms, but there is no evidence that the vehicle remained for that long. Without such evidence, there is no basis to conclude that the driver accepted any contractual terms, and therefore no liability can arise.
With the above points made, you can then assert that you cannot be liable as the Keeper and the unidentified driver cannot be liable either.
For the purpose of throwing in the kitchen sink for the appeal, add the following points for good measure:
3. Signage incapable of forming a contract
If, despite the clear absence of keeper liability under PoFA and the lack of any evidence that a contract was formed with the driver, the assessor is still minded to consider the charge, then the operator is put to strict proof that the signage at the site was sufficiently clear, prominent, and unambiguous to form a legally binding contract. I contend that it was not.
4. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that they have a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises them to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in their own name.
I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner) (https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/sector_single_Code_of_Practice_Version_1.1_130225.pdf), which sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land. In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
UKPC tickets can usually be beaten if you're prepared to put in the effort to fight them all the way.
Looking at the actual contravention, I don't think you've much of an argument there. The way the driver parked is effectively blocking the next bay, and UKPC can argue they're protecting a legitimate interest of the landowner by issuing a charge.
If they want to recover the charge from you as the keeper of the vehicle, they need to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (there's a link in my signature under this post). One of those requirements is to 'specify' the period of parking. Their notice merely states a single time, which isn't sufficient (Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions).
You could appeal along the lines of the below as the keeper:
Dear Sirs,
I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: _____) for vehicle registration mark _____, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you claim to be able to hold me liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("the Act"), but this is not true. You have failed to specify a period of parking as required by 9(2)(a) of the Act.
I am appealing as the registered keeper. There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.
Yours
They will almost certainly reject this appeal, but you can then appeal to POPLA. You've a better chance at POPLA, but they too can be a bit rubbish. If they reject, the next step is a potential court claim in the County Court (small claims track). These claims are almost always discontinued before a hearing, if defended with our help - see here: DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations)