The NtK is not PoFA compliant at all. What makes you think it is compliant?
PoFA 9(e) {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
(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;
Nowhere does it state that. Nowhere is there any invitation for the keeper to pay the charge. Nowhere does it state that if the keeper was not the driver they should notify the creditor of the name and address for service for the driver or to pass the notice to the driver.
The NtK mentions the "motorist". There is no such term in PoFA. The "driver is liable for any alleged breach of contract. They don't know who the driver is. They only know who the "keeper" is. The driver and the keeper are two separate entities. No inference can be made that the keeper must also be the driver.
PoFA 9(2)(b), (c}, (d)(i) and (ii), (e)(i), and (f)(i) and (ii) are not complied with.
Additionally, they have breached the BPA ATA CoP 21.5 in that the images on the NtK must bear an accurate time and date stamp applied at the point the picture was taken. It does not matter if they are on the file images when you view them on their website. They must be unaltered and not cropped just so they fit on the NtK.
A recent POPLA appeal was successful on this point alone:
POPLA case 2413353469
Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: ***** Stanton
Assessor summary of operator caseThe operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the date and time of parking.
Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:
- The signage is inadequate
- The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements.
- The NTK does not accurately describe the circumstances so there is no keeper liability.
- The operator has not shown that the individual it is chasing is the driver.
- No landowner authority
- Grace period- Non compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA).
- No evidence of the period parked.
- Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA.
- The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and they have commented on the operator’s case file.
Assessor supporting rational for decisionIn terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:
The Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA. The appellant has stated in the comments that although the operator has provided full date stamped photographs in the case file, the images on the NTK are not compliant.
I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal and I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states: "
When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."
I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator and I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice.
These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full images in the case file they appear to have been digitally altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially apparent on the colour image on the NTK.
The image recorded of the vehicle entering the site is also not very clear I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
So, the Assessor says the images in the NtK are "cropped to fit on the NTK" and not date stamped.
This was the POPLA appeal as submitted:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y410nf9lbh2x8q4l6byan/POPLA_ECP_redacted.docx?rlkey=xggasv1r1l58guloq8m6vd4dt&dl=0