Free Traffic Legal Advice

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I was not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.

The operator has stated that this PCN is NOT issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). That alone makes it legally impossible for them to pursue me as keeper. However, even if they had attempted POFA compliance, they failed to meet the statutory requirements.

Under POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(4), where no notice to driver was issued, a Notice to Keeper (NtK) must be given (delivered) within 14 days of the alleged parking event. In this case:

• The alleged parking event occurred on [insert date of parking event]
• The Notice to Keeper was issued on [insert issue date of NtK]
• The presumed “given” date is [insert date: two working days after issue date]
• That is [insert number of days from event to given date], which exceeds the statutory 14-day 'relevant period'

This breach alone disqualifies the operator from transferring liability to the keeper. They have not identified the driver, and I am under no legal obligation to do so. PoFA does not impose any duty on the keeper to assist the operator in identifying the driver, nor does it permit enforcement against the keeper in the absence of full compliance.

As the registered keeper and not the driver, I cannot be held liable. This appeal must be upheld on this point alone.

Additionally, the operator is put to 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 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.