5
« on: December 21, 2025, 11:56:01 pm »
Thank you for the information and advice. I believe these might be ground s to appeal/refuse to name the driver
1. NTK not compliant with PoF
PoF Sch 4
para 4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and
(b)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
para 6 (1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.
para 9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)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;
The NTK does not state that the creditor does not know the name of the driver or service address. Therefore it does not meet the requirements of para 9, para 6 and thus para 4 to transfer liability to the keeper.
2. The creditor has not complied with the PPSCoP
Annex F
Page 43 of 57
THE SINGLE CODE OF PRACTICE
Introduction
F.1 Exempt circumstances
Parking operators should take all reasonable steps to avoid issuing a notice to exempt
classes of vehicle (listed below) by scrutinising images and weighing the balance of doubt.
The Appeals Charter is a statement of the way certain grounds of appeal based on an
error or mitigating circumstances will be handled by the parking operator. There are 2
scenarios considered within the Appeals Charter:
1.Where the parking charge should be cancelled.
2.Where the parking charge should be reduced to £20 for a period of 14 days.
F.3 Appeals where the charge should be reduced to £20 for a period of
14 days
In considering appeals parking operators must recognise the below case types as
mitigating circumstances warranting a reduction in the amount of the parking charge to
£20 for 14 days, subject to appropriate evidence being provided. This reduction applies
only for the first parking charge issued to the vehicle for the specific contravention, where
payment is made within 14 days and where no independent appeal is lodged.
g) where the vehicle would have been permitted to park at the location, but the driver failed
to enter their registration into a terminal/device as specified in the terms & conditions.
The NTK keeper states: "We are writng to inform you that a parking charge has been issued to the above vehicle for the following breach of he terms and conditions: Parked without registering vehicle at the bar or reception". NTK states discount to be £60, despite confirming the breach met the requirements for a discount to £20.
Further, PPSCoP Scope "Parking operators who comply with the Code will be entitled to request registered keeper
data from the DVLA, for the purpose of contacting the registered keeper of vehicles in
relation to the alleged incident. DVLA considers the release of data under Regulation 27 of
the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulation 2002." As the operator did not comply with the code, they were not entitled to request registered keeper data from DVLA.
Any advice on whether these make sense would be greatly appreciated.
Show Posts