I suggest the following:
1. The keeper was not driving. The operator, therefore, purports to hold rely on Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') to hold the keeper liable. However, in order to do so, the operator must deliver to the keeper within the 'relevant period' as defined in POFA paragraph 9(5) a notice to keeper ('NTK') that satisfies the strict requirements of POFA, including the requirements of POFA paragraph 9(2)(f). Partial or even substantial compliance with POFA is insufficient.
2. The relevant period defined in POFA paragraph 9(5) is 'the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended' which has now expired so the operator cannot now deliver a new POFA-compliant NTK.
3. The operator's purported NTK is not POFA-compliant because it does not include the mandatory warning required by POFA paragraph 9(2)(f) which states that a NTK must:
warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid
4. The warning in the operator's purported NTK does not include the mandatory statement that the creditor's right to recover from the keeper is subject to all applicable conditions under POFA being met.
5. The operator may seek to argue that their warning conforms to the wording required by the IPC Code of Practice. However POFA is an Act of Parliament and is law. The IPC Code of Conduct is not law. While the operator might in retrospect consider that it made a mistake in choosing to comply with the IPC Code of Practice rather than the law, IAS adjudicators must apply the law and cannot consider mistakes or extenuating circumstances, whether made by the operator or the IPC.
6. The operator's summary of the Equality Act is breathtaking in its ignorance. Reasonable adjustment for breastfeeding mothers is expressly required by the Act and is not limited to the examples cited by the operator. Subsections 17(3) and (4) read as follows:-
(3)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if, in the period of 26 weeks beginning with the day on which she gives birth, A treats her unfavourably because she has given birth.
(4)The reference in subsection (3) to treating a woman unfavourably because she has given birth includes, in particular, a reference to treating her unfavourably because she is breast-feeding..
7. The child in question was less than 26 weeks old at the time of the alleged parking event. A copy of the child's birth certificate has been uploaded. The operator is not entitled to any further 'evidence' of breastfeeding.
8. It is immaterial whether the unadjusted consideration period is 5 or 20 minutes. The adjusted amount of time required by the driver (who was alone with her baby) was 22 minutes and she must be allowed that time by law. Please note that this is a respectful demand for application of a legal right and not a request for consideration of mitigating or extenuating circumstances
