Free Traffic Legal Advice

Just to confirm, did you submit the exact POPLA appeal template suggested by b789 above?

Or did you send this:

Dear POPLA assessor, The appellant is the registered keeper and is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. The operator has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and therefore keeper liability does not apply. As such, the burden remains with the operator to prove who was driving. The POPLA assessor is reminded that no adverse inference may be drawn from the keeper’s silence, and no assumption may be made that the keeper was the driver.

Copy and paste the following into the POPLA webform for the response:

This is the appellants response to the operators evidence.

The keeper was not the driver and is under no obligation to identify the driver. This was stated clearly in the appeal. The operator has completely failed to engage with this or provide any evidence as to the identity of the driver. Nothing in PoFA allows the assumption that the keeper was the driver, and no such inference is permitted, as made clear in the persuasive appellate case of VCS v Edward (2023).

The appeal also clearly explained that no Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued following the Notice to Driver (NtD). This is a key requirement under Paragraph 8 of PoFA if the operator wishes to transfer liability to the keeper. There is nothing in the operator’s evidence pack to suggest a NtK was ever issued. They have completely ignored this point. Without a PoFA-compliant NtK served within the correct timeframe, there is no keeper liability. This alone is fatal to their case.

The appeal pointed out that the NtD fails to specify a “period of parking” as required by Paragraph 7(2)(a) of PoFA. The ZatPark report included in their evidence confirms this, explicitly stating “Observed from: N/A”, “Observed to: N/A”, and “Observed for: N/A”. Their own timestamped photos span just 10 seconds — this is not a period of parking. They have not addressed this at all, let alone explained how a contract could be formed in under 10 seconds, or how the driver could have read, understood, and accepted any terms.

The appeal also raised the issue of whether a contract could have been formed at all, due to the lack of any meaningful evidence that the driver had time to consider the terms. Again, completely ignored. No response from the operator.

The operator relies on signage to claim a contract existed, but their evidence undermines this. They include four facsimile images of signs, which are not photographs of signs in situ. These are mock-ups, not proof of what a driver would have seen. The £100 charge is buried deep in a dense block of small text, not highlighted at all. This is contrary to the Beavis ruling, which was based on the charge being clearly and prominently displayed.

The actual photos of signs that they do include are even worse for them. The signs are high up, weathered, and unreadable — even in their own close-up shots. If the operator can’t provide a clear image in optimal conditions, then it’s clear that a driver on the ground would have no chance of reading and understanding the terms. These signs fail the test in PoFA paragraph 2(2) which states:

"The reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land)."

and

Paragraph 2(3) which states:

For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by—

(a)the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or

(b)where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which—

(i)specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and

(ii)are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.

of being “adequately brought to the attention” of the motorist.

They also include in their evidence pack, a Google Earth-style satellite view with a green line and four yellow dots but provide no explanation of what these mean. There is no key, no annotation, and it’s not clear how this is relevant. This is not evidence.

Finally, the operator misstates the law, either deliberately or due to utter incompetence, when they say that because the DVLA provided the keeper’s details, the keeper must identify the driver. This is legally wrong. The DVLA provides details for the purpose of issuing notices, not to presume liability. There is no requirement for the keeper to identify the driver, and no adverse inference can be drawn from their silence.

In short, the operator’s evidence fails to rebut any of the appeal points. They have ignored the lack of a NtK, ignored the absence of a period of parking, ignored the question of contract formation, and relied on signage that their own evidence shows is unreadable. They have misrepresented the law on keeper liability and have not provided any legitimate basis to pursue the keeper.

This appeal must be allowed.

When it comes to the hearing, I strongly suggest you lead with the KEY legal point which is that you have only appealed as keeper because Elite notified you that 'you have now...internal appeals procedure' and for no other reason.

As the assessor will be aware, the 'Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle' conferred by s.4 of Schedule 4 to the P...of F..Act 2012 may only be exercised, inter alia, after a Notice to Keeper has been served.

None has been served in this case as is clear from the creditor's evidence. It therefore follows as a matter of law that the keeper has no liability in this matter and I ask the assessor to direct the creditor accordingly.

And let's not worry about secondary issues, even whether a parking charge was due because IMO they are not relevant to achieving the objective. The creditor fails on the KEY point and that's all that's required....IMO.

When the matter is disposed of by the assessor.

But let's stick with the key issue. OP the creditor may not pursue you in law. But if you don't get a direction to this effect then they're likely to keep on and on and on and hope to wear you down.

Whatever you need to do to get the KEY legal point across, do it.