Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you for your response, could you take a look at the below draft,

///
PCN Reference: [Insert PCN number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert registration]
Appellant: Registered Keeper


1. No Keeper Liability – Bewl Water is Not Relevant Land Under PoFA 2012
The operator’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) purports to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”) to transfer liability for an alleged parking charge from the driver to the keeper. This is legally impossible in this case.

Paragraph 3(1) & 3(3) of Schedule 4 PoFA defines “relevant land” and excludes any land which is subject to statutory control.

Bewl Water is governed by the Medway Water (Bewl Bridge Reservoir) Act 1968 and forms part of a statutory water undertaking operated by Southern Water, subject to statutory regulation under the Reservoirs Act 1975 and other statutory provisions.

Therefore, Bewl Water is not “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA. This is not an assertion—it is a matter of statutory fact.

Because the land is excluded from the definition of “relevant land,” the keeper cannot be held liable for any parking charge incurred by the driver.

The operator’s NtK is therefore fundamentally flawed in law. POPLA is bound to allow an appeal where keeper liability is not established and the operator has failed to identify the driver.

2. No Evidence of Driver Identity
The operator has been informed that the driver will not be identified. There is no legal presumption in law that the keeper is the driver, and the operator has no evidence to the contrary.

Without PoFA applicability, only the driver can be pursued, and the operator has chosen not to (or cannot) prove who that was. Therefore, liability cannot transfer to me as the keeper.

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and direct the operator to cancel the PCN.

Signed
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper

Cool, thank you

Great, thank you so much for your time.