TO start with... PoFA para 7 only applies to a windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD) Para 8 only applies to a Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued after an NtD was issued and not responded to. Para 9 applies to any other postal NtK that is issued without any NtD having been issued. For ;eased/hired vehicles, para 14 applies, only after the lease/hire company receives an NtK under paras 8 or 9 and they have then complied with para 13 of PoFA so that a Notice to Hirer (NtH) can be issued under para 14 to the Hirer.
Here is a tidied up and expanded version:
I am the registered keeper and I appeal this Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and keeper liability cannot arise
2. The allegation of “leaving the premises” is vague, unevidenced, and legally unenforceable
3. The signage is incapable of forming a contract for the alleged contravention
4. The operator is put to strict proof of signage near the vehicle and of any boundary warning signs
5. The operator is put to strict proof of landowner authority and contractual terms permitting PCNs for this alleged breach
1. PoFA non-compliance (Paragraph 9(2)(a)) and no evidence of any contract being formed
The operator seeks to hold the keeper liable using a postal Notice to Keeper. Only Paragraph 9 applies. Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking.” This NtK states only a single time of observation, not any period of parking. ANPR entry/exit timestamps or a single instant do not evidence a period of parking.
In the absence of a stated and evidenced period of parking, the NtK is not compliant with PoFA 9(2)(a) and keeper liability cannot arise.
Separately, even on the facts, there is no proof that the vehicle was parked for longer than the mandatory consideration period afforded to motorists to read and decide whether to accept terms. Without evidence that any consideration period was exceeded, the operator has not shown that a parking contract was ever formed, still less breached.
For completeness, the operator is also put to strict proof of full compliance with the other mandatory elements of Paragraph 9, including 9(2)(e) (the prescribed invitation to the keeper), 9(2)(f) (the prescribed 28-day warning), 9(2)(h) (identification of the creditor), and delivery within the 14-day window per 9(5) and 9(6). Any defect defeats keeper liability.
2. The “leaving the premises” allegation is vague, unevidenced, and unenforceable
The operator alleges “the occupants left McDonald’s premises” without defining who this applies to (driver, a passenger, or all occupants) or what “the premises” are. No boundary is identified, marked, or evidenced. No timestamped observations are provided establishing who supposedly left, when, or where. A non-driving keeper cannot be liable for undefined movements of unnamed third parties.
3. Signage incapable of forming the alleged contract
The signs do not clearly and prominently state that all occupants must remain on defined premises, nor do they define the premises. Signs addressed to drivers cannot bind passengers, and vague prohibitions cannot create a clear contractual term or a lawful deterrent charge.
The operator is put to strict proof that, at the material time, signage clearly and prominently stated that all occupants must remain on a defined premises, identified that boundary on site plans, and warned that breach would result in a charge.
4. Strict proof of signage near the vehicle and any boundary markers
Generic site photos are insufficient. The operator must show the vehicle’s exact location, the nearest readable terms sign at that location at the material time, and the precise boundary allegedly crossed, with contemporaneous photos of any markers or warnings that crossing it would constitute a breach.
5. No evidence of any landowner authority or standing
The operator is put to strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly 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.
Conclusion
The NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(a) because it does not state any period of parking; therefore keeper liability does not arise. There is also no evidence that any consideration period was exceeded, so no contract is shown to have been formed. The “leaving the premises” allegation is undefined and unevidenced. The operator has not shown clear, proximate signage, a defined boundary, or landowner authority for this unusual charge type.
I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and require cancellation of the PCN.