Free Traffic Legal Advice

The document you have shown us is labelled as a 'reminder' - did you not receive the original?

Additionally, the reminder says that the original notice was issued on 6th March - if that too was addressed to you, that seems unusually quick to have gone from parking event -> registered keeper -> hirer. Is this a Motability car?

What date did you receive this rejection, today?

I will include below an adapted version of a suggested IAS appeal, taken from another ongoing case at this exact location, taken from this thread: Universal Parking Enforcement, PCN, Parking on a no Parking Area, Kellys Storage LU2 9LF

Be under no illusions that the IAS are not fit for purpose, and there's a strong chance they will reject your appeal. However, it costs nothing to try, and the result is not binding on you. I usually don't recomend bothering with the IAS, but of the very small number of successful IAS appeals I have seen, they've nearly all been cases like this where the notice was issued far too late.

Again, you are appealing as the registered keeper.

[NAME] (Registered Keeper) (Appellant)

-Vs-

Universal Parking Enforcement (Operator)

Vehicle Registration Mark:[VRM]
Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN REFERENCE]

Case Overview:
I, the registered keeper (“I”/“the Appellant”) of the above vehicle (VRM: _______), received a parking charge notice via post from Universal Parking Enforcement (“the Operator”), which purported to be a Notice to Keeper. I appealed to the Operator, who acknowledged and subsequently rejected my appeal. It is my position that as the registered keeper of the vehicle I have no liability for the parking charge, and that my appeal should therefore be upheld. My appeal is on the following grounds:

1. No keeper liability: the Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (“PoFA”/“the Act”):
The operator does not not know the identity of the driver and is therefore seeking to recover the charge from me, the registered keeper of the vehicle. As established in the persuasive appeal case of VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], the Operator may not draw an inference as to who was driving on the basis of who the registered keeper is. They are therefore pursuing me as the registered keeper, and the IAS should therefore consider my lack of liability for the charge as the keeper of the vehicle.

In order to be able to recover any unpaid charges from me as the registered keeper, the operator must comply with the requirements outlined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. They have failed to do so. They have failed to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended, as specified by 9(5) of the Act.

Date of Parking: 27/06/2024
Date of PCN issue: 27/11/2024
Date of presumed service (2 working days after issue, as per 9(6) of the Act): 29/11/2024
Elapsed time period: 155 days

The notice was sent and delivered more than 5 months after the date of the alleged parking event. As Universal Parking Enforcement have clearly not complied with the conditions of PoFA, and as there is no evidence as to who was driving, I cannot be held liable for the charge as the registered keeper, and my appeal should be upheld.

[/quote]

My concern is my employer may not let me make a POPLA appeal.

If you are the registered keeper of the vehicle as per the DVLA's records then what does your employer have to do with it? The notice is addressed to you, not them.

In the case you mentioned it was determined that a single point in time is not a "period of parking" and that whilst it does not have to be the whole period of parking, there must be a minimum period stated.

Essentially yes - the period covered by the photos or stated on the notice would, at the very least, need to be long enough to show that the vehicle was there long enough to conclude that a contract has been formed giving rise to a charge.

Contract law (and to an extent, common sense) says that a person cannot be bound by contract terms he has not had the opportunity to read and acquaint himself with. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice sets out some defined 'consideration periods' which are what they consider to be suitable minimum times allowed for this. The Code of Practice is not law, but is a useful starting point.

I've told you before not to share photos of the FTLA moderation team.

In which case, this should do the trick.

Dear Sirs,

I have received you Notice to Hirer [(PCN number)] for Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]. I am the hirer of the vehicle. There is no obligation for me to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

To hold me liable for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle, you must meet the conditions specified in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”). I note from your correspondence that you have failed to meet these conditions. These failures include (but are not limited to):

• A failure to serve a Notice to Hirer containing all the information required by 14(5) of the Act.
• A failure to include the additional documents mentioned by 13(2) of the Act.

As a result of this, you are unable to recover the specified charge from me, the hirer. As I do not have liability for this charge, I am unable to help you further with this matter. I therefore look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you do not cancel the charge, you must provide a POPLA code.

Yours

If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 28 days, chase them.

Here's a starter for ten... Because of the way paragraph 8 of PoFA is worded the wording of any subsequent POPLA appeal always ends up being a little convoluted, but I've tried to make the point as clear as possible:

No rush to submit so there may be other comments.

POPLA Appeal

[NAME] (Registered Keeper) (Appellant)

-Vs-

MET Parking Services Ltd (Operator)

Vehicle Registration Mark:[VRM]
 POPLA Reference Code: [POPLA REFERENCE]
 Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN REFERENCE]

Case Overview:
I, the registered keeper (“I”/“the Appellant”) of the above vehicle (VRM: _______), received a parking charge notice via post from MET Parking Services (“the Operator”), which purported to be a Notice to Keeper, following the affixing of a Notice to Driver to the vehicle windscreen. Following receipt of the supposed Notice to Keeper, I appealed to the Operator, who acknowledged and subsequently rejected my appeal. It is my position that as the registered keeper of the vehicle I have no liability for the parking charge, and that my appeal should therefore be upheld. My appeal is on the following grounds:

1. No keeper liability: the Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (“PoFA”/“the Act”):
The operator does not not know the identity of the driver and is therefore seeking to recover the charge from me, the registered keeper of the vehicle. In order to be able to recover any unpaid charges from me as the registered keeper, the operator must comply with the requirements outlined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. MET Parking Services have failed to do so.

Paragraph 8 of PoFA sets out the requirements that must be met for an operator to recover unpaid charges from the registered keeper of a vehicle, in cases where a Notice to Keeper is issued following the issuing of a Notice to Driver. Paragraph 8(4) states that:

(4)The notice [to keeper] must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

Paragraph 8(5) defines the "relevant period" as "the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given". As set out below, MET Parking have failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper within the relevant period defined by paragraph 8(5) of PoFA.

Date Notice to Driver was 'given': 02/12/2024
Final day of the "relevant period" of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given: 24/01/2025
Date of issue of Notice to Keeper: 06/03/2025
Date of presumed service (2 working days after issue, as per 8(6) of the Act): 10/03/2024

As is clear from the dates outlined above, the Notice to Keeper was given 45 days after the end of the relevant period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given, as defined by paragraph 8(5) of PoFA. MET Parking Services are therefore unable to rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold me liable as the keeper. Accordingly, as there is no evidence as to who was driving, I cannot be held liable for the charge, and my appeal should be upheld.

For the reasons outlined above, it is clear that as the registered keeper I have no liability for this charge, and I request that my appeal is upheld.

Choose 'other' - the text of your appeal sets out the reasons for your appeal.

The dates above are very important. For the 'debt advice' letter, a hard copy sent by 1st class post from a Post office on Friday 4th April, and a copy sent by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk on Monday 7th April.

I realise I'm labouring the point, but getting the dates right is the key to success in this case.