Any initial appeal will be rejected. However, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is defective. The date of issue is OK as it was deemed "given" within the 14 day relevant period. Contravention date is 30/10/2025 and with an issue date of 03/11/2025 it was deemed given on 5/11/2025, 6 days after the date of the alleged contravention.
Where the NtK is deficient is under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i), 9(2)(f) and 9(2)(h). These are explanations why each paragraph has not been complied with:
9(2)(e)(i):Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.
Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper liability.
What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g. language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days” / “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i) forbids.
For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the 9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not identified. The keeper is not liable in law.
9(2)(f):The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 because it misstates the statutory timescale before Britannia may seek to recover the charge from the keeper. PoFA requires the notice to “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given” the amount remains unpaid and the driver has not been named, the creditor will have the right to recover the charge from the keeper. In contrast, this notice states that Britannia may recover the charge “if, after 28 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued)…” the amount is unpaid. By starting the 28-day period on the date the notice is “given”, instead of the day after, the wording unlawfully shortens the statutory period and substitutes Britannia’s own version of the mandatory warning. This defect means the notice does not contain the warning prescribed by 9(2)(f), and Britannia cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
9(2)(h):The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 because it misstates the statutory timescale before Britannia may seek to recover the charge from the keeper. PoFA requires the notice to “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given” the amount remains unpaid and the driver has not been named, the creditor will have the right to recover the charge from the keeper. In contrast, this notice states that Britannia may recover the charge “if, after 28 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued)…” the amount is unpaid. By starting the 28-day period on the date the notice is “given”, instead of the day after, the wording unlawfully shortens the statutory period and substitutes Britannia’s own version of the mandatory warning. This defect means the notice does not contain the warning prescribed by 9(2)(f), and Britannia cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
As any initial appeal is not going to succeed, simply appeal as the Keeper and wait for the rejection and the POPLA code where you can go to town on an appeal. There is no legal obligation on the
known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK 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 keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Britannia has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Britannia have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.