Have you tried Plan A and asked the landowner to get it cancelled?
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA 2012 compliant with paragraphs 9(2)(a), 9(2)(e)(i) or 9(2)(h). As long as the driver is not identified, in law, they cannot hold the Keeper liable.
1. Paragraph 9(2)(a) – specify the period of parkingThe notice only shows ANPR entry and exit times (15:32 to 17:02). These record vehicle movement past the cameras, not the actual
period of parking as required by PoFA. There is no evidence or statement specifying the duration of parking once stationary, meaning it fails to “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates”.
2. Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) – invite the Keeper to payThe notice demands payment from the “driver” and instructs the keeper to provide the driver’s details but does not include the mandatory invitation wording required by PoFA:
“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:
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 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.”
There is no mention anywhere that the Keeper is invited to pay in lieu of naming the driver. Therefore PoFA 9(2)(e) is not satisfied.
3. PoFA 9(2)(h) – creditor not clearly identifiedParagraph 9(2)(h) requires the NtK to “identify the creditor” – i.e. the legal person to whom the parking charges are due (Sch 4 para 2(1)). This NtK never does so. It is headed with Premier Park Ltd’s name and refers vaguely to “We, the Creditor…”, but it does not state whether the creditor is the landowner, a managing agent, or Premier Park Ltd in its own right.
On private land there are often several entities in the chain and the keeper is entitled to know precisely who is alleging a debt is owed. A vague, self-referential “we, the creditor” on a contractor’s letterhead is not identification in the sense required by PoFA. The notice therefore fails the mandatory requirement at 9(2)(h), so keeper liability cannot arise.
