Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: Jimbob1976 on May 20, 2026, 12:07:07 pm

"The fact that no payment was recorded does not prove the contravention if the driver was not adequately informed of the terms."

I dont think that adds anything really, im not sure?

It's a fair point, but if you've already made that point in your main appeal you can get away without repeating it.

Thanks for that. They sent as their evidence a whole bunch of pics etc, i didnt use that in my initial response as the main line of attack was the incorrect number of days. I am not sure i should add that in as it wasnt used originally and gives them a chance to respond?

Ok. So I have gone back through my initial response, made some tweets to it. I think this is a stronger arguement

I have reviewed the operator’s evidence and case summary. I maintain my appeal and request that it be allowed for the reasons below. The operator has failed to establish keeper liability and has not proved the contravention adequately.

1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – No Keeper Liability

This is my primary ground of appeal. The operator relies on keeper liability but their NTK fails to meet the mandatory statutory requirements of paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 4 POFA 2012.

The operator’s NTK states:

"you are advised that if after the period of 30 days beginning with the day after that on which this parking charge notice to keeper is given..."

This wording is materially defective because paragraph 9(2)(f) requires the NTK to warn the keeper that the creditor will have the right to recover the unpaid parking charge from the keeper after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the notice is given (subject to the other conditions).

The operator has substituted 30 days for the statutory 28 days. This is not a minor or inconsequential change. It misleads the keeper as to the precise legal trigger for liability and alters the timing Parliament prescribed.

The operator claims “nothing in Schedule 4 requires us to quote it verbatim” and that the BPA has “approved” their wording. This is misleading. While the entire Schedule need not be reproduced, the Act does mandate that specific prescribed information (including the exact 28-day warning in 9(2)(f)) must be included. BPA approval does not override statute or bind POPLA. Adjudicators assess compliance with the law, not trade body approval.

By failing to convey the mandatory warning accurately, the operator has not satisfied the strict conditions in paragraph 9. Therefore, the conditions for keeper liability under paragraph 6(1)(b) are not met. They have no legal basis to pursue me as the registered keeper. Liability (if any) remains with the unknown driver.

2. No admission as to who was driving

I appealed strictly as the registered keeper. I have never admitted to being the driver, and the operator has provided no evidence identifying me as the driver on 11 March 2026. Without a compliant NTK under POFA, they cannot pursue the keeper.

The operator has provided a redacted landowner agreement and details of parking sessions. This does not cure the fundamental failure on POFA compliance. The fact that no payment was recorded does not prove the contravention if the driver was not adequately informed of the terms.

For the reasons above — particularly the clear defect in the NTK — I respectfully ask POPLA to allow the appeal and cancel the charge in full.

Opinions?

There were mitigating factors which i am sure they wont pay attention to. The driver is a Mental Health Nurse visiting a client and the appointment over ran. They have the parking app as they use it all the time and paid (or least they thought)as usual for the extra hour. It wasnt until a week or so later they realised the payment didn't go through, by which time it was too late to pay (no history on the app at all for this payment).

They're stating:

the Notice to Keeper letter was approved by the BPA as being compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to enable us to pursue the keeper of a vehicle in the event they do not provide us with the name and serviceable address of the driver within 30 days of the notice being deemed as “served”. Please note, that nothing in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 requires that we quote it verbatim, and as explained, the letter has been approved by the BPA on several occasions as being compliant in terms of wording relating to Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

I'm talking about on the actual POPLA website, I've never used it before so I just wanted clarification that I was on the right page. What I wrote below is the actual wording from the appeal site. There are 6 options to choose from.

I've also never said I wasn't the keeper?

Thanks do you know if there is an option to add documents/clips from the actual notice and "add" then on to the Popla website? Or would I just state the actual wording on the defence (assuming Popla would have all the paperwork from Total as part of the process?).

Regards

Hi All

Would anyone with better knowledge than i please advise on the above, just wanted to get the appeal in but want to make the appeal as assertive as i possible can.

Thanks in advance and sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Hate to bump this but it's been a few days and if possible I'd love some feedback on the above and how I can put my case forward with more assertion if needed

Would the below be suitable or how i can i give it a little more oomph:

FORMAL APPEAL - PCN xxx

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to make formal representations against PCN [number] issued on [date].

I am appealing this parking charge on the grounds of POFA 2012
non-compliance, namely, Paragragh 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 the Protection of Freedoms Act says the notice must:

warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.

However, the PCN notice received states:

"You are advised that, if after the period of 30 days beginning with the day after that on which this Parking Charge Notice to Keeper is given."


Also, the parking company operator has no legal right to enforce the charge against the keeper, and also has no legal right to require the keeper to name the driver.

With both of these facts in place, the charge cannot be allowed to stand and my appeal should stand.