No.
The legislation requires that the NtK invite the keeper to pay the charges OR nominate another driver.
I understand the point which you are making - that the operator has a choice as to which one they invite the driver to do - but that isn't in keeping with the grammar of the text of the legislation.
Quote.
.
.
Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper liability.
POPLA are now in a very difficult situation as I believe we are putting more pressure on them with regard to ECP NtKs - sooner or later they will have to crack.
Posted by InterCity125 on 03 Mar, 2026 08:21
Post actions
For the record, I'm quietly confident that we can word a single appeal point POPLA appeal which they will find very difficult to rebut.
Jumping in on this, the pcn "does not contain the mandatory wording", mandatory is mandatory. It seems like theyve closed ranks. The assesor was wrong and so is the complaints assesor. You simply cannot interpret the act to suit yourself. As it stands, the complaint was never going to overturn the original judgement anyway, Im interested to see if ECP and their cronies attempt to test this nonsense in court, now theyve seen this and now think theyve got some kind of 'justification to proceed'.
Unbelievable.
She admits that the mandatory wording isn't present but implies that a different warning subjectively satisfies the requirements - this is nonsense.
Given that appealing via POPLA is clearly nothing more than a box-ticking exercise, is the appellant in any way disadvantaged by simply not entering into the charade and waiting for the inevitable legal letters?
Unbelievable.
She admits that the mandatory wording isn't present but implies that a different warning subjectively satisfies the requirements - this is nonsense.
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 complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ECP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.
Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper liability.
What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g. language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days” / “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i) forbids.
For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the 9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not identified. The keeper is not liable in law.
NTK Page 1 https://ibb.co/Jj4MJfv9
NTK Page 2 https://ibb.co/XrF04NPZ
Thanks in advance guys .....