Free Traffic Legal Advice

This PCN arrived over the weekend:

The location on google maps is here : https://maps.app.goo.gl/xBUkPUshJLxA1VSy7
We will be returning to check the signage / take pictures and then update this post.

On the day in question the driver pulled into the the area just off the road. From memory the signage is set way back beyond these bays ( TBC after a visit to site to look/get pictures)  so that it appeared like the first few bays where this car was parked were free for short term use and those beyond the signage were chargable / for those intending to stay longer / walk on the forset etc.

Driver was in a new car and a screen error popped up " sos / check SOS light" so pulled in to call dealer etc. Not sure relvant but didn't leave the car - just got momentarily out of the car to get better call signal etc. Couldn't actaully get through and restarted software after looking and mnaual and it cleared so drive went home

Thank you

Easy one to deal with… 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.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

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

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Horizon has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Horizon have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Come back when they reject it and you can then make a simple appeal to POPLA.

As already said, you are under no obligation to reveal the identity of the driver.

Horizon and others skate as close to the law as they can to persuade you otherwise.

You respond as advised, and if your appeal is rejected as it often is, you use it with POPLA who should uphold your appeal.

The only time you have to identify the driver is if you’re asked to do so under oath in court. Follow our advice and you won’t go to court.

In relation to the appeal text and possbible / likely referring to POPLA - We had a read and thought it was saying that if asked you had to then reveal the driver as long as someone knows - or is that only if it gets as far as court and in this case it wouldn't as they would fail at POPLA - thank and apoligies if this is a silly question!

No, you are not legally required to reveal the identity of the driver at any stage of the appeal process, including with the operator, POPLA, or even in civil court proceedings.

During the appeal, you do not have to name the driver. If the parking operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), then they cannot hold the keeper liable, and the appeal should succeed on that basis. POPLA looks at whether the operator has met the legal conditions to pursue the keeper. If they haven’t, the identity of the driver doesn’t matter.

If it goes to court, you are still not compelled to identify the driver. The burden of proof is entirely on the claimant to prove who was driving. You are not required to help them, deny anything, or provide any evidence that supports their claim. Choosing not to name the driver is a lawful and strategic choice, not a breach of law.

The confusion often comes from criminal law, specifically Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. That applies to police-issued Notices of Intended Prosecution, not private parking. Even under that law, while there is a duty to respond, people still have the right not to incriminate themselves, though they may face separate penalties for not complying.

So in short: no, you don’t have to name the driver. Not in the appeal. Not in court. Not ever. And if the operator has failed POFA compliance, the keeper cannot be held liable.

All the Keeper has to do is refer to the driver in the third party. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".

If the Keeper was not the driver, then you can clearly state that, otherwise all you have to do as the Keeper is decline to identify the driver. If selecting a drop down menu option, if unsure, just select "other".

Pleased to report I have just got confirmation the PCN has been cancelled - thank you for the help with this