Unfortunately, that Notice to Keeper (NtK) is just about as compliant with PoFA as you can get. It was issued on Wednesday 22nd October, which means it was “deemed” given on Friday 24th October, exactly 14 days after the alleged contravention on Friday 10th October.
Also, their NtK wording is also PoFA compliant. However, the presumption of service (delivery aka “given”) is rebuttable. You can put them to strict proof that the NtK was actually entered into the postal system and they used a first class postal service that guarantees a 1-2 working day delivery.
They will not be able to do so, which means the presumption of delivery, is rebutted. They will only be able to show a hybrid mail receipt that does not prove the date it was entered into the postal system and even then, it will show that they did not use a guaranteed 1-2 working day delivery method, but rather a 2-3 day delivery service.
Also, as the payment for the parking session was frustrated by their own payment system, there cannot have been any breach of contract by the driver. Frustration of contract is always a good defence unless they can prove their system was functioning properly at the time.
Also, ANPR is not evidence of “parking”, only of time on site. There have been even several claims recently where the judge dismissed the claim because their ANPR images are not evidence of “parking”.
Not that any initial appeal would be upheld, but a POPLA appeal stands a very good chance of being successful. Even if it isn’t, this would easily be won if they ever escalated to a county court claim. The actual odds of any claim getting as far as an actual hearing, are slim to none.
I would advise that you follow the following advice and appeal ONLY as Keeper and after rejection, you can appeal in detail to POPLA:
Subject: Appeal as Keeper – PCN [reference], VRM [ABC123], Stratford Chobham Academy, 10/10/2025
To National Car Parks (NCP),
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I dispute your parking charge and deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver and no assumptions may be drawn.
1) No contract could be formed due to frustration/impossibility (payment system failure).
Your case relies on ANPR timestamps for entry at 19:03 and exit at 20:26. ANPR records time on site, not any period of “parking” nor whether your payment system was functioning. On 10/10/2025, the NCP app would not allow progression past the first screen despite multiple attempts. A payment receipt was only generated later that evening once your system finally permitted a transaction (attached). Where a trader’s own payment mechanism prevents timely performance, any alleged contract is frustrated and no breach can arise. It would be unfair and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to penalise a consumer for a failure attributable to the trader’s systems.
2) Consideration and grace time; no breach even on your case.
Time spent entering, locating terms, and attempting payment (particularly when impeded by your app) falls within a reasonable consideration period on arrival and must be assessed before any breach is alleged. Your ANPR images do not evidence a period of actual parking in breach of terms, nor when payment became technically possible.
3) Service of the NtK – strict proof of posting and ‘given’ within 14 days.
Under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, paragraphs 9(4)–(6), an NtK must be delivered (‘given’) to the keeper within 14 days of the event. Your NtK is dated 22/10/2025 for an event on 10/10/2025. You are put to strict proof that it was posted (not merely generated) on 22/10/2025 by a first-class (or equivalent 1–2 working day) service so that deemed delivery would fall on 24/10/2025 (day 14). The Private Parking Single Code of Practice v1.1, clause 8.1.2(e), Note 2 requires operators to retain a record of the date of posting, not simply generation (including the date any third-party mail consolidator put it into the postal system).
Please supply contemporaneous postal evidence:
(a) a certificate of posting or postal manifest evidencing handover to Royal Mail (or equivalent) on 22/10/2025;
(b) the class of service and its delivery standard (1–2 working days, not 2–3 day economy); and
(c) for hybrid mail, the consolidator’s injection date into the postal system with OBA/receipt.
Absent such proof, the presumption of delivery is rebutted and PoFA keeper liability does not arise. You must cancel or pursue the driver only (which you cannot do based on keeper data).
4) Strict proof required (you hold the logs and site evidence).
If you do not cancel, provide:
• App/server logs showing full operational status at Stratford Chobham Academy between 19:00–20:30 on 10/10/2025, including authentication and payment flows;
• Evidence of any alternative on-site payment method being available and working during that period;
• A site plan and contemporaneous photographs showing signage positions actually passed by vehicles entering at 19:03, and proof of illumination/legibility in the hours of darkness;
• An explanation of how your ANPR images evidence a parking contravention rather than time on site while attempting to comply.
Given the above, the only fair and lawful outcome is cancellation. If you refuse, supply a POPLA code. I will rely on these grounds and any further evidence (including your logs) in that appeal.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name of Keeper]
[Postal address of Keeper]
[Email]
Enclosures:
• App payment receipt (10/10/2025)
• Brief note/screenshot describing the payment failure encountered