Free Traffic Legal Advice

1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) Received
2. Evidence of Posting the NtK Required
3. Reservation of Rights to Challenge PoFA Compliance
4. Non-Compliance with BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice
5. Evidence of Landowner Authority Required

1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) Received

The Company, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, did not receive the Notice to Keeper (NtK). Upon receiving a reminder letter, the Company contacted the operator to complain that the original NtK had not been received. During this telephone conversation, the operator’s representative admitted that the NtK was “probably lost in the post” and advised that the Company could either pay the charge or appeal using the reminder letter. This statement demonstrates that no NtK was received.

The operator is attempting to rely on the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to transfer liability from the driver to the Keeper. For this transfer of liability to be valid, the operator must comply with the strict statutory requirements of PoFA, which include the timely delivery of a compliant NtK to the Keeper. The failure to deliver the NtK undermines the operator's case.

2. Evidence of Posting the NtK Required

Under PoFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), the NtK must be given to the Keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking event. It is the operator’s responsibility to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof that the original NtK was sent and delivered by requiring them to provide the following evidence:

• A Certificate of Posting, showing the date on which the NtK was sent.

or

• A delivery receipt or equivalent proof of service, confirming when the NtK was delivered to the Keeper.

Assertions alone by the operator that the NtK was sent are insufficient. Without documented evidence of posting or delivery, the operator cannot demonstrate compliance with PoFA’s requirements.

Failure to prove that the NtK was sent and delivered within the required timeframe renders the operator unable to transfer liability to the Keeper under PoFA.

3. Reservation of Rights to Challenge PoFA Compliance

Since no NtK was received, the Appellant cannot assess whether the operator complied with all the requirements of PoFA. The Appellant explicitly reserves the right to challenge the PoFA compliance of any NtK presented by the operator in their evidence pack, if/when received.

POPLA assessors are reminded that:

PoFA compliance must be absolute; partial or substantial compliance is insufficient to transfer liability to the Keeper.
This includes strict adherence to all prescribed wording, deadlines, and content requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9.
Should the operator provide a copy of the NtK, the Appellant reserves the right to highlight any deficiencies or non-compliance in their response to the operator’s evidence.

4. Non-Compliance with BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP)

The operator must comply with the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP) as a condition of their membership and in accordance with industry standards. In this case, the operator has failed to comply with the following SCoP provisions:

• Transparency in Communication: The operator failed to ensure that a compliant NtK was received by the Keeper, which is a fundamental procedural failure.
• Proper Escalation Processes: The operator advised the Keeper to appeal using the reminder letter, despite the absence of the original NtK. This does not align with fair and professional practices expected under the SCoP.
• Predatory Practices: The operator appears to rely on missing NtKs to proceed with charges against Keepers, contrary to the fair treatment principles outlined in the SCoP.

The operator is required to adhere to these standards, and their failure to do so casts doubt on the validity of the charge and the fairness of their conduct.

5. Evidence of Landowner Authority Required

The operator is required to have a valid, written contract with the landowner that:

• Grants them the authority to issue parking charges in their own name.
• Confirms their legal right to enforce parking terms on the land in question.

This is a mandatory requirement under both PoFA and the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice. The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof to produce an unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner, showing that it:

• Grants them the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in their own name.
• Covers the location where the parking event allegedly took place.
• Was valid on the date of the parking event.

Without such evidence, the operator has no legal standing to pursue this charge, and the PCN should be cancelled.

Conclusion

The operator has failed to establish Keeper liability under PoFA or demonstrate compliance with other legal and procedural requirements. Specifically:

• The original NtK was not received, as evidenced by the operator’s admission that it was “probably lost in the post.”
• The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof that the original NtK was posted and delivered, which requires verifiable evidence such as a Certificate of Posting or delivery receipt.
• The operator has failed to comply with key requirements of the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice.
• The operator has not demonstrated that they hold a valid contract with the landowner giving them the authority to issue PCNs in their own name.

Given the above points, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.