Sorry in advance about the formatting of this post, I have tried to make it more legible, but can't seem to improve it.
I received a NtK for overstaying 90mins at Morrisons, Solihull. I didn't identify the driver and sent off a generic reply stating that I wouldn't be identifying the driver and hence would not be paying.
Predictably the appeal was rejected:
https://i.postimg.cc/3Rv9cw2q/ECP-appeal-refused-001.pnghttps://i.postimg.cc/SxSTxkpP/ECP-Nt-K.pngHope these images work, as I've never used this service before.
From reading other posts on the forum ECP appear to threaten court action, regardless of any appeal to POPLA? But I was wondering if the following (which I have copied from the forum) is worth sending to them anyway:
"The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with multiple mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), and therefore no keeper liability can arise. The operator may only pursue the driver for payment, not the registered keeper. The deficiencies are as follows:
1. Failure to specify the period of parking (Paragraph 9(2)(a))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
This NtK contains no “period of parking.” It merely states that a parking charge was issued for “failed to make a valid payment” and refers to a date of issue. ANPR systems record entry and exit times, but those are not synonymous with a period of parking because they do not show when the vehicle was stationary. The vehicle may have spent time queuing, manoeuvring, or exiting. The Department for Transport’s statutory guidance and persuasive appeal decisions (e.g. Brennan v Premier Parking (2023)) make clear that a period of parking must refer to an actual time parked, not merely camera timestamps. This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with 9(2)(a).
2. Failure to properly invite the keeper to pay or name the driver (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i))
PoFA requires the notice to “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, to provide the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.”
The NtK does not invite the keeper to pay. Instead, it commands: “If you were not the driver... please inform us of the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice on to them.”
This is a material deviation from the statutory wording. Parliament intended the keeper to be given the option either to pay or to name the driver. A command to “inform us” is not an invitation to pay. The omission defeats one of PoFA’s key procedural safeguards and invalidates keeper liability.
3. Defective warning of keeper liability (Paragraph 9(2)(f))
PoFA requires the warning to state that the keeper will become liable if “after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given” the charge remains unpaid and the operator does not know the driver’s identity.
The NtK instead says liability will arise “after 28 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued).”
This re-wording changes the statutory time calculation. The Act specifies that the 28-day period begins the day after the notice is given, not “from the date issued.” The operator’s version shortens the period by at least two days, thereby failing to reproduce the mandatory wording prescribed by Parliament. This departure is not a minor error: Schedule 4 imposes strict conditions that must be met exactly before keeper liability can be invoked.
4. Failure to unambiguously identify the creditor (Paragraph 9(2)(h))
PoFA requires the NtK to “identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.”
The NtK merely asserts that the land is “managed by Euro Car Parks Ltd (the creditor).” It omits the full legal entity name, company number and registered address. Without a full legal identity, the keeper cannot know who the creditor actually is, making the notice defective under 9(2)(h).
5. Ambiguous dating and delivery wording (Paragraphs 9(2)(i) and 9(4))
PoFA requires the notice to “specify the date on which the notice is sent (given)” and defines when it is deemed “given.” The NtK refers only to a “Date Issued” without confirming when or how it was sent or delivered. This vagueness prevents a reliable calculation of statutory deadlines and is another failure to meet PoFA’s strict requirements.
Conclusion
PoFA Schedule 4 is a strict liability framework: every requirement must be met before any right to recover a parking charge from a vehicle’s keeper arises. The NtK in this case fails to meet at least paragraphs 9(2)(a), 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f), and is further undermined by non-compliance with 9(2)(h) and 9(2)(i). As a result, Britannia Parking cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper. The operator may only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been provided. The appeal should therefore be allowed.
In Addition
I require strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• The identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site."
I appreciate all the time and effort put into the forum and give my thanks in advance for any advice given.
[/left]
Show Posts