There is more than a single PoFA failure. Here is a PoFA (Sch 4, para 9) compliance check of the TPS NtK you have shown us:
1. Relevant land / timings
• Location (St Mary’s Medical Centre, Stamford) appears to be “relevant land”.
• Event: 09/10/2025. Issue date: 17/10/2025. Presumed delivery is two working days after issue, so 21/10/2025. That is day 12, i.e. within the 14-day requirement in para 9(4). Timing is compliant.
2. Para 9(2)(a): “specify the period of parking”
• The notice shows ANPR “observation times” 10:57:22–11:20:39 and a “duration of stay: 23 mins”. It does not state a “period of parking”. ANPR timestamps are moments of entry/exit and may include non-parking time (circulation, queuing, loading, reading signs). Labelling them as “observation times” rather than “period of parking” falls short of the statutory wording and intent. Non-compliant.
3. Para 9(2)(e)(i): mandatory “invitation to keeper”
• The NtK says liability “lies with the driver” and directs “If you were the driver, pay… If you were not the driver, tell us who was…”. It does not invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. PoFA requires the keeper be invited either to pay or to name the driver. That invitation to the keeper to pay is missing. Non-compliant.
4. Para 9(2)(f): the 28-day keeper liability warning
• To transfer liability, the NtK must warn that after 28 days the creditor has the right to recover the unpaid charge from the keeper (subject to conditions). This NtK instead asserts that liability lies with the driver. I cannot see the statutory 9(2)(f) warning. Non-compliant.
5. Para 9(2)(h): identify the creditor
• The notice identifies “The Creditor is Total Parking Solutions Ltd.” Compliant.
6. Other required particulars (vehicle/land/amount/how to pay/appeals)
• These are present in substance.
Conclusion
• TPS have not met the mandatory 9(2)(a), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(f) requirements. Even though service was in time, they have not created keeper liability under PoFA. The keeper is not liable. TPS may only pursue the driver (who need not be identified).
As for the second part of your post... it’s not your strongest primary point, but it’s usable as a supporting point about proof and signage.
Does “waiting in the car, not in a bay” count as parking? In private parking cases, “parking” is construed broadly. If a vehicle is stationary on the site (even with the driver inside), operators and many judges will treat that as parking unless the driver is in a traffic queue or in an area where brief stopping is expressly permitted.
ANPR entry/exit times don’t prove where the car was or that it occupied a bay governed by the “permit/VRM entry” terms. They only show site presence for ~23 minutes.
Is the “no evidence of parking” angle helpful? On its own, it’s weak because TPS can say the car was stationary on their land for 23 minutes and the terms applied site-wide. It becomes useful if you frame it as an evidential/signage failure:
1. No proof of a period of parking in a place where the alleged term applied. ANPR images show only entry/exit. There’s no on-site still of the vehicle in a signed bay or in an area where the “permit/VRM entry” requirement applies. If the car was on an internal roadway or set-down area, the operator must prove that area was covered by clear, nearby signage imposing the same term.
2. Transparency: If patients must enter the VRM at reception, that is a qualifying condition for free parking. It must be prominent at the point of decision. If the driver never left the car and the site lacked conspicuous “Patients must register your VRM at reception” notices on approach/entry, the term wasn’t adequately brought to their attention (Consumer Rights Act 2015—transparency and prominence).
3. Entitlement: The scheme is “for patients and doctors.” As a current patient, the driver fell within the class entitled to free parking; the VRM-entry step is an administrative mechanism. If not clearly signposted, failure to complete it should not trigger a £100 charge.
How I’d position it (priority order)
1. Keeper liability fails under PoFA (your strongest point here).
2. Unfair/unclear term: “Patients must register VRM at reception” not prominently disclosed at the point of parking; charge not enforceable.
3. Proof/signage gap: TPS has not shown the vehicle was parked in a location to which that term applied, nor provided a “period of parking” evidenced by anything other than ANPR timestamps; they must prove the breach and the applicable sign for that location.
4. Fallback: Even if “parked,” the driver was a patient entitled to free parking and any breach was caused by the operator’s failure to signpost the VRM-entry process adequately.