Some breaches of POFA could be argued to be technical in nature - omitting the invitation to the keeper to pay is not.....it's a mandatory element and if it's missing then the NTK is non-compliant and liability cannot be transferred from driver to keeper.
@Brenda_R2 unless you can quote an authority or binding precedent on this point, then that is still an opinion. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I'm saying we can't describe it as if it is established fact.
Apologies.
You’re absolutely right that there’s no binding appellate precedent on this specific POFA omission, and I’m not suggesting otherwise. My point is simply that POFA Schedule 4 sets out mandatory requirements, and paragraph 9(2)(e) is one of them.
If a Notice to Keeper doesn’t include a mandatory element, then by definition it doesn’t comply with POFA, and keeper liability cannot arise. That isn’t a controversial interpretation — it’s the standard way statutory “must include” provisions are read.
So I’m not claiming an established precedent, just applying the statute as written. I’m happy to phrase it as:
“In the absence of 9(2)(e), the NTK does not meet the statutory requirements of POFA, and therefore cannot create keeper liability — although there is no binding authority specifically on this omission.”
