It is
not enough for the correct PoFA wording to appear
somewhere on the Notice to Keeper (NtK). The issue is not simply whether the statutory wording is included — it’s about whether the notice
conveys a clear, unambiguous and consistent instruction to the recipient regarding their liability and the statutory time limits under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA
requires the NtK to “
state that the keeper is required to pay the parking charge in full within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.”
If the front of the NtK incorrectly demands payment
within 28 days of the date of issue, that misstates the legal time period by
at least two days. The "date of issue" and the date the notice is deemed "given" are not the same in law. According to Paragraph 9(6), a notice sent by post is considered “given”
two working days after posting, not on the day it was issued.
This kind of contradiction is not a harmless oversight. It creates a clear conflict between:
• a false, immediate deadline on the front (designed to provoke early payment), and
• the statutory timeframe tucked away elsewhere.
This fails the statutory test. The law does not say the correct words must appear “somewhere” — it says the notice
must specify them. That means the
entire notice must be read as a consistent, compliant document. A conflicting statement on the front renders the notice
incoherent, and therefore
non-compliant.
It’s a basic principle of consumer protection law that a notice must be clear, accurate and unambiguous. This is echoed in:
• Schedule 4 of PoFA itself,
• The Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – which requires clear communication of obligations, and
• Contract law in general, where ambiguity is construed against the party drafting the notice (the parking firm).
Therefore, it is legally irrelevant that the correct wording may appear on the reverse if the front of the NtK
undermines or misstates it. The keeper cannot be expected to resolve contradictions, and the operator
must bear the burden of any resulting uncertainty.
