Free Traffic Legal Advice

Just for clarity, did you admit to being the driver in your letter?

Once again Alex Roby skips over the specific complaint points because they are unable to demonstrate compliance.

I agree with all the above.

What's also worth pointing out is that the defence is 'fine tuned' to the specifics of the case rather than being a generic internet defence.

Their letter is simply an attempt to pressure the defendant into paying through the use of dramatic language.

You could reply with the following;



To whom it may concern,

Thank you for your recent communication.

I have noted its contents and will make the following comments;

Firstly, it is ironic that you are critical of my so called 'internet defence' when you yourselves are using a boiler-plate / robo-claim in your County Court claim form - the wording of the Claim has no relevance to the facts of the matter at hand.


To be clear, both you and your client are fully aware that I was not the driver at the material time.

Furthermore, your client's NtK was produced and posted well beyond the 14 day limit for PoFA keeper liability.

Meaning; that I cannot be held liable for the unpaid charges under any circumstance.

How many times do I need to state this before the penny drops?

I notice that your latest letter is very careful to skirt around this inconvenient truth?

You should also understand that the is no legal requirement for me to reveal who was driving and, as such, I will not be doing so.


I am sorry that I cannot help you further in this matter.



Best wishes,

xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

This is the second time this scenario has come up in the last couple of weeks.

If I remember correctly, the signage does not mention the need for the Evology account.

Approach the gym to get it cancelled?

Euro Car Parks POPLA Appeal


I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question and, since the driver is not known to the operator, I will be making my representations purely as keeper.


I understand that, under 'POPLA Rules', I must set out my appeal points and the parking operator must rebut them?


Non compliance with PoFA 2012.

The parking operators NtK fails to comply with PoFA and, as a result, liability cannot be passed from driver to keeper.

In particular, the NtK fails to satisfy the legal requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).

This non compliance is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA.

Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) sets out the following;


THE NOTICE MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;


So, in order to establish compliance, we must examine the operators NtK.

An examination of the legislation surrounding 9(2)(e) reveals that compliance is achieved by the setting out of the statutory wording immediately followed by a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'nominate another driver'.

So, to make this really easy, in the first instance, we are looking for the specific statutory wording set out in 9(2)(e) itself.

The legislation specifies that THE NOTICE MUST STATE, "that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver"

An examination of the operators NtK reveals that the statutory wording is not present.

This is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA.

However, to demonstrate my appeal point further, the NtK is then required to present a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' which 'invites the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver'

Please again note the exact wording of the statute;

That the notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver AND invite the keeper— blah blah blah

I have capitalised  the word AND for good reason since the word AND demonstrates that compliance is only achieved if the operator is able to demonstrate that both legs of the AND logic have been satisfied.

Please note (and I apologise for sounding like a Junior School Teacher) that a 'warning to the keeper' is not 'an invitation to the keeper' - The words 'warn' and 'invite' have very different meanings and it is important that the correct wording is understood and applied when examining the NtK since other terms of the legislation require that 'a warning' be set out on the NtK - I understand that some POPLA assessors have become confused on this issue in the past and have inadvertently applied the reversed meanings - to be clear, a warning is not an invite.

So, back to the two limbed invitation to the keeper - when the NtK is examined the two limbed invitation is not present.

Nor is there an 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges' - this is also the specific requirement of 9(2)(e)(i).

So, as I am sure you can see, there are multiple compliance issues on the operators NtK.


So,

APPEAL POINT ONE - That the operators NtK does not contain the legally required mandatory wording required by 9(2)(e), namely; "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - I therefore ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the relevant NTK, to the POPLA Assessor, with an orange rectangle around the wording, "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - for total clarity, please do not include any other notations on the provided NtK - just the orange rectangle.

APPEAL POINT TWO - That, subsequent to the statutory wording required by 9(2)(e), the operators NtK does not set out the mandatory two legged invitation to the keeper to either pay the unpaid parking charges or nominate another driver - Once again, I ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the NtK which clearly sets out, in an orange rectangle, the two legged legal invitation which the legislation requires in order to be compliant.

APPEAL POINT THREE - That, in accordance with 9(2)(e) and subsequently 9(2)(e)(i), the NtK must 'invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges' - Once I again I ask the operator to prove that the NtK complies with this requirement - please demonstrate the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges' - Please do not confuse this 'invitation' with any 'warning to keeper' contained in the requirements of 9(2)(f).


If both the Parking Operator and the POPLA Assessor could use my numbered points then this would be very useful and should ensure that all appeal points are correctly addressed.

WOW moment.

Not seen this from IAS before.

An Assessor who actually applies the correct rules.

Well done - nice work.

To be clear;

The person (or company) named on the NtK should respond to the parking operator by naming the vehicle hirer.

The operator will then issue a Notice to Hirer which you can then respond to.

As has already been mentioned, the parking operator will almost certainly screw the transfer of liability up when issuing the NtH as the will most likely fail to send the accompanying documents which are required to hold the Hirer liable.