Free Traffic Legal Advice

Have a look at POFA:  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4  Para 9 - and count the ways they have not complied with the requirements to allow transfer of liability to the keeper - so you can build an appeal around this for no keeper liability.  The notice is dated 20th vs an event of the 10th, so it's quite likely they didn't get it in the post in time to get it delivered with 14days - for an initial appeal you can state that it was not delivered with the required timescale.  Most likely they will reject your appeal, but you might have more luck at POPLA, where you can ask them for proof that the notice was posted (not generated as per the date on it) in time to arrive.

I don't think they are relying on PoFA with this particular PCN.

There is a simply appeal wording than can be submitted.

However, it's always best to go 'route one' and approach the retailer in the first instance - Waitrose are normally pretty good if you're a genuine customer.

Thank you, will try Waitrose first.

What do you mean by 'not relying on PoFA'?

What appeal wording could be submitted, and what would be the basis of the appeal in regard to the NtK?

Thanks

I don't think they are relying on PoFA with this particular PCN.

You're right, they haven't specifically mentioned it, nor that they will seek to pursue the keeper - but the implication is there - and POFA is the only mechanism by which they can.  So they can't!

roythebus's appeal is good - odds on they will reject it, but you need to jump through the hoop.

What do you mean by 'not relying on PoFA'?

POFA = Protection of Freedoms Act - this is the legislation that allows private parking cos to pursue the keeper for the charges.  However, there are very specific requirements they must include in the NTK, and in this case Britannia don't appeared to have tried at all.  They will probably reject the appeal, but POPLA should uphold this one.

Quote from: InterCity125 on January 30, 2026, 01:49:23 pm

I don't think they are relying on PoFA with this particular PCN.

You're right, they haven't specifically mentioned it, nor that they will seek to pursue the keeper - but the implication is there - and POFA is the only mechanism by which they can.  So they can't!

roythebus's appeal is good - odds on they will reject it, but you need to jump through the hoop.

Quote from: jpopper on January 30, 2026, 02:31:24 pm

What do you mean by 'not relying on PoFA'?

POFA = Protection of Freedoms Act - this is the legislation that allows private parking cos to pursue the keeper for the charges.  However, there are very specific requirements they must include in the NTK, and in this case Britannia don't appeared to have tried at all.  They will probably reject the appeal, but POPLA should uphold this one.

Thank you (and the other posters who are replying),
I apologise but I'm not sure I follow what in the PoFA linked to is specifically not correct in this PCN/NtK that would form the basis of the appeal. Is it this section:

---------------------

(e)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;

(f)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;

-------------------------

Does the phrase in the NtK "You have 28 days to pay, appeal or transfer liability from the date of this notice" cover it?

Is it because the NtK doesn't specifically use the wording from the PoFA above about the creditor not knowing the name and address of the driver? Does the use of "transfer liability" not infer this?

----

I have not yet been able to get hold of anyone at Waitrose to respond to this, and I'm conscious that if I do not submit an appeal by 14 days after date of issue (which will be Tuesday 3rd Feb), then the freeze during the appeal will be at the £100 charge rather than the £50 early payment rate.

I believe if they (Britannia) reject an appeal and then the appeal goes through POPLA, that if rejected I would be liable for the £100 charge rather than the £50. I'm not keen on risking this unless there's a very high chance of winning.

Thanks