Free Traffic Legal Advice

Subject: Keeper Appeal – Charge Notice 987187 (Vehicle DF14KYP)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle registration DF14KYP regarding your Charge Notice 987187.

Your Notice to Keeper is fundamentally non-compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4 and no contract could have been formed with the driver, for the following reasons:

1. No Period of Parking Stated and No Evidence of Contract Formation

Your original Notice to Driver failed to specify any “period of parking” as required by PoFA paragraph 7(2)(a). Instead, it recorded only a single observation time followed by a time of issue one minute later. A one-minute snapshot is not a “period of parking” and does not satisfy the mandatory requirement under PoFA, as confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions, where the court held that an operator must evidence an actual identifiable period of parking, not merely a momentary presence.

Moreover, the lack of any proper recorded parking period means there is no evidence that the vehicle remained stationary beyond the minimum mandatory consideration period required under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The driver is entitled to enter the site, review the signage, and leave without entering into any contract.

Since you have provided no evidence that the vehicle remained in situ beyond the minimum consideration period, there is no basis to suggest that any contractual relationship was ever formed between the driver and Ace Security Services.

This is not simply a PoFA breach: it is also a breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice in failing to respect the minimum consideration period and issuing a charge when no contract could have been created. This breach of the Code of Practice also amounts to a breach of the KADOE contract you hold with the DVLA.

A formal complaint has already been submitted to the DVLA regarding these breaches and the misuse of Keeper data.

This fundamental defect carries through to your Notice to Keeper, which also fails to specify any “period of parking” as required by PoFA paragraph 8(2)(a). The NtK simply restates the same defective single timestamp without providing any proper period of parking as shown in your Notice to Driver.

2. Incorrect Wording Regarding the 28-Day Period

Your Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with PoFA paragraph 8(2)(f) because it misstates the mandatory warning about the 28-day relevant period.

Specifically, your NtK wrongly claims that the Keeper has "28 days from the date given" to make payment.
This is completely incorrect.

PoFA paragraph 8(2)(f) expressly requires you to warn the Keeper that the 28-day period begins "AFTER" the day on which the Notice to Keeper is given (i.e., after it is deemed delivered, which is two working days after posting).

The use of the word "AFTER" in PoFA is deliberate, precise, and critical. It means that the counting of the 28-day period does not start on the day the notice is given, but starts on the day "AFTER" the notice is deemed given.

By incorrectly stating that the Keeper has 28 days from the date given, you have misstated the Keeper's legal rights, confused the actual payment deadline, and fundamentally failed to comply with the requirements of PoFA 8(2)(f). Strict adherence to the statutory wording is required for any attempt to transfer liability from driver to Keeper. Because you have misstated the timing rule by ignoring the crucial word AFTER, your NtK is invalid for the purposes of PoFA.

Because of these defects, you have failed to meet the mandatory conditions under PoFA Schedule 4, and therefore you cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. Your claim against the Keeper must fail.

If you are unable to understand the explanation provided, I suggest you pass this appeal to a responsible adult within your firm, preferably one who has at least a basic understanding of PoFA and contract law and have them explain to you that you have no hope of ever recovering a penny from the Keeper and are only going to be wasting your firm's money on a wasted IAS appeal or, even more on trying to litigate this.

Yours faithfully,

[Full Name]
Registered Keeper