Free Traffic Legal Advice

Are the PCN reference number the same or different? Either way, you can tell them to reference the answer given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram (1971).

Their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant and as long as the drivers identity is not revealed to them, there is absolutely nothing they can do about these PCNs.

PoFA requires that the NtK must be "given" to the Keeper within the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. As the alleged contravention occurred on Saturday 21st December 2024 and the PCN was "issued" on Thursday 2nd January, it cannot have been "given" before Monday 6th January (tomorrow).

In order to have complied with PoFA, the NtK must have been "given" no later than Saturday 4th January. As it is not PoFA compliant, there is no Keeper liability.

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 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.

Appeal with the following, which will be rejected by CUP but must be upheld by POPLA:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and I dispute your alleged ‘parking charge’. I deny any liability or contractual agreement, and I will be making a complaint about your predatory and incompetent conduct to your client landowner.

Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with all the mandatory requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). It would appear that CUP Enforcement has failed to grasp that PoFA compliance is not a "close enough" exercise. Partial or even substantial compliance does not suffice.

The timeline is simple and damning:

Date of alleged contravention: Saturday, 21st December 2024
Date of NtK issue: Thursday, 2nd January 2025
First date of presumed delivery: Monday, 6th January 2025

For your NtK to be PoFA-compliant, it should have been issued by Wednesday, 1st January 2025, at the latest. Clearly, it was not.

I remind you that liability under PoFA is strictly limited to the driver unless the NtK is served within the relevant period and in full compliance with the statutory provisions. As your NtK fails this threshold, you are unable to hold me, the registered keeper, liable.

CUP Enforcement seems to be relying on some creative but misguided legal theories about presumed driver liability or the law of agency. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. There will be no admission as to who was driving. No assumptions or inferences can be drawn. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.

I note your NtK. I refer you to the answer given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971). In that spirit, I suggest you cancel this PCN and save us both a complete waste of time. You’ve got no chance at POPLA and you should try and save yourself the assessor fee.

I look forward to confirmation that this matter is now closed.

Thanks for your reply and template, should be very helpful. Yes, the two PCNs have different reference numbers.

I'm a little confused about the dates you mention in your reply. If the PCN was issued on the Thursday 2nd January, why could it not have been given before Monday 6th January?

Great, many thanks!

After some thought about this, I would suggest making a formal complaint to CUP rather than appealing two separate NtKs. Use their formal complaints process and sent them the following as a PDF letter attached to an email addressed to info@cupenforcement.com and CC in yourself:

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Duplicate PCNs for the Same Alleged Contravention

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to formally complain about two separate Notice to Keeper (NtK) letters I have received from CUP Enforcement regarding the same alleged contravention, purportedly occurring on 21st December 2024 at 105-115 The Parade, Watford WD17 1LU. These NtKs, while assigned different PCN numbers [PCN #1 number] and [PCN #2 number], are otherwise identical and relate to the same date, time, location, and even feature the same ANPR photographic evidence.

This duplication is a serious administrative error that raises concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of your enforcement processes. Issuing multiple PCNs for a single event result in unfair and unjustified financial demands against the registered keeper.

Furthermore, I note that the NtKs claim to have been issued under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, the dates on the NtKs invalidate any claim to compliance with PoFA. The alleged contravention took place on Thursday, 21st December 2024, and the NtK was issued on Thursday, 2nd January 2025. In order to comply with PoFA, the NtK must be given within 14 days of the alleged contravention, meaning the latest date by which it should have been given was Tuesday, 31st December 2024. Your failure to meet this statutory deadline means that the keeper cannot be held liable under PoFA.

I wish to make it clear that I am not submitting a separate appeal for each PCN at this stage. Instead, I am raising this issue as a formal complaint under the provisions of the latest BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), Section 11.2, which states:

"Where a parking operator receives a complaint that it considers to be or include an appeal against the validity of a parking charge, the parking operator must also treat it as an appeal for the purposes of applying the timescales in Clause 8.4, and should inform the complainant as such unless and until it is clear that the complaint is not relevant to an appeal or the complainant informs the parking operator that they do not wish it to be so handled."

Given the above, I demand that CUP Enforcement:

• Cancel both PCNs immediately, as they pertain to the same alleged contravention.

• Provide a full explanation as to how this duplication error occurred.

• Confirm in writing that no further action will be taken against me, the registered keeper, in relation to this alleged incident.

Please treat this complaint as an appeal if necessary, in line with your obligations under the BPA Code of Practice.

If this matter is not resolved satisfactorily within 14 days, I will escalate my complaint to the British Parking Association (BPA) for further investigation. I also reserve the right to report this matter to the DVLA and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for potential misuse of my personal data.

I expect a prompt and detailed response.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

What are the timestamps on the photos?

Top left of each photo of the vehicle. First one appears to say 10:42.

I'm on the fence about the suggested approach. I'm half minded to suggest getting 2 appeals in so that you can definitely get them cancelled at POPLA if CUP decide to be daft. But I do agree that issuing 2 notices for 1 continuous contravention should be complained about.

So there is, apologies. I'll check them when I get home!