Free Traffic Legal Advice

NPC’s invoices often fail to comply with the legal requirements to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, so please read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ and post the PCN you refer to.

And don’t identify the driver. Here or anywhere. You probably need to edit your post.

Show us both sides of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) received. Unless their NtK is fully compliant with PoFA 2012, they can only hold the driver liable. They have no idea who the driver is unless the Keeper (the recipient of the NtK) blabs it totem, inadvertently or otherwise.

DO NOT try to appeal this until you have show us both sides of the NtK and make sure that you leave all dates and times unredacted.

Of course you should challenge this PCN because the site’s signs fail to make a dual-payment requirement clear. A reasonable driver using a clearly marked EV charging bay would assume that paying the charger fee includes permission to remain in the bay while charging. If a separate parking tariff is also required, that is a surprising term that must be clearly and prominently stated at entry, at the bay, and at the charger. It was not.

The charger sign talks about electric vehicle rapid charging and time spent charging, but says nothing about also paying a parking tariff. The main tariff board lists parking prices but says nothing about EV bays or any requirement to pay that tariff while also paying for electricity. The operator’s own site for this car park reportedly does not mention EV chargers or EV terms. Taken together, this is ambiguous and misleading.

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be transparent and prominent; ambiguities are interpreted against the trader. Requiring two simultaneous payments without clear, prominent warning is not transparent. Under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), key terms must be clear, conspicuous and unambiguous, and special bay rules must be identified at entry and at the bay. That did not happen here. Any ticketing while the car was actively charging also ignores the consideration and grace expectations in the Code.

Your appeal should say the vehicle was in an EV bay, actively charging, the driver paid for electricity, and that no sign made a separate parking tariff clear in addition to the charging fee. State that any such term is ambiguous and unfair and therefore unenforceable.

Keep evidence. Photos of the charger sign and the main tariff board showing no EV dual-payment warning. Proof the car was plugged in and charging. Charger receipt or app screenshot. Screenshot of the operator’s webpage for that site showing no EV information.

Ask NPC to produce a contemporaneous site map of all signs on the material date, close-ups of any EV-specific terms at entry, bay and charger, and proof that the RingGo or charger journey disclosed a requirement to pay both fees at this location.

If they refuse, you can escalate on the same basis: unclear and misleading signage, unfair term requiring dual payment, and non-compliance with the Single Code.

Until we can establish whether their NtK was fully compliant with PoFA, you, the Keeper, must only ever refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".

Even though we ask you not to obscure dates and times, it’s clear from that notice that no “period of parking” is given, so the NtK is not fully compliant with PoFA 2012.

Please reattach a copy with the dates and time showing.

On Friday 7th November you appeal ONLY as the Keeper. Make a note in your diary. There is a strategic reason for this.

DO NOT identify the driver. They have absolutely no idea of the drivers identity u less you blab it to them, inadvertently or otherwise. You, the Keeper, only ever refer to the the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only " the driver did this or that".

As long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Driver (NtD)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtD is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing the above Parking Charge Notice. I deny any liability or contractual agreement with your company.

Your Notice to Driver (NtD) does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), specifically paragraph 9(2)(a), as it does not specify any period of parking. As such, you are unable to transfer liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper.

There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and no assumptions or inferences should be drawn. The NtD can only hold the driver liable, not the registered keeper.

For the avoidance of doubt, my full name and address for service are provided below. You are now in lawful possession of the keeper’s data for the purpose of processing this appeal. Should you subsequently obtain the same keeper data from the DVLA, such an action would constitute unlawful duplicate processing of personal data in breach of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1)(f) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). These provisions require that data be processed lawfully, fairly, and only to the extent necessary for a legitimate purpose. A duplicate DVLA request would therefore be reported to both the DVLA and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as a data protection breach.

If you reject this appeal, you are required to provide details of the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), which is the appropriate Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) entity under the IPC scheme.

Please confirm that this charge has been cancelled.

[Full Name]
Registered Keeper of [VRM]
[Full Postal Address]

By appealing as the Keeper on the last day, they often respond to (reject) the appeal and don't issue an NtK. With no NtK issued, there is no Keeper liability.

For PoFA to apply EVERY requirement MUST be complied with. If you bother to read the legislation, there are certain requirements that MUST be met. When legislation states that a person or body must do something, it creates a legal duty. Failure to comply generally constitutes a breach of statutory duty or renders the act or decision unlawful. “Must” leaves no discretion.

Unless every requirement is met, then there can be no Keeper liability. Partial or even substantial compliance is not enough. Just like someone cannot be partially or even substantially pregnant, likewise, a PCN cannot be partially or even substantially PoFA compliant. It is a binary issue. It either is or it is not PoFA compliant.

Whether the operator or the secondary appeals service don't agree, is irrelevant. Where it will matter is f it ever went to court.

As you are dealing with bottom-dwelling ex-clampers and the kangaroo court of the IAS, you don't bring anything up apart from the basic appeal initially. Once they have rejected it (and they will), you can then escalate the proof they are required to provide. It is not for you to disprove anything. The burden of proof is on the operator.

If you want to learn a bit about why the argument in the initial appeal about "no period of parking" which fails PoFA 7(2)(a), is one of the "MUST" requirements to be able to hold the Keeper liable, then have a read of the persuasive appellate decision in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023).

I've been doing this for many years.