Hello everyone, I would appreciate any help on this.
I as the registered keeper has received the NTK as titled. Here’s the background.
On 5th April, the driver parked and paid for 3 hours. The driver completed their business but has exceeded the duration and left without paying additional hours.
On the 8th, I received the attached NTK. There’s a few points to note, not too sure the relevance:
1. The driver paid parking 3 hours; the parking duration is 3:30.
2. The parking according to google Maps, is in OL1 1HP and OL1 1HY. But the PCN stated the location as OL11PU, which couldnt be found on Google Maps. Streetcheck says the postcode was terminated in 2008.
I hope people can advise me on this. Thanks in advance!
I also attached the parking receipt/stub, for reference, in case it’s of any use.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
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.
The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which requires the notice to specify 'the land on which the vehicle was parked'. The location is given as 'Ascroft Street, OL1 1PU'. However, OL1 1PU is not a valid or recognised postcode according to the Royal Mail Postcode Finder. The absence of a legitimate and verifiable postcode renders the location vague and unidentifiable. As such, this NtK is non-compliant.
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. Initial Parking 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. Initial Parking have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Any initial appeal will be rejected but it will get you a POPLA code.
Thank you very much, will use your reply to appeal. Have a great day!
I've received a reply from Initial Parking, but it seems like a very generic reply. Didn't even address about the wrong postcode (pun intended).
I attached the replies below. Should I continue with the POPLA?
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Of course you do a POPLA appeal. I just prepared one for someone here:
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/highview-parking-exceeded-maximum-stay-new-street-retail-park-ashford-kent/msg68416/#newHave a look and take what you can from that and adapt it to your own situation and the following:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to Keeper Fails to Identify the Relevant Land – No Keeper Liability Under PoFA 2012
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) allows a parking operator to hold a vehicle’s registered keeper liable only if the Notice to Keeper (NtK) strictly complies with the requirements set out in Paragraph 9.
Paragraph 9(2)(a) states that the notice must:
"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates."
The NtK issued by Initial Parking merely states “Ascroft Street, OL1 1PU” as the location. However, OL1 1PU is not recognised by the Royal Mail Postcode Finder and does not correspond to any verifiable site. There are no known parking sites associated with this postcode, and the location cannot be confirmed.
As a result, the NtK fails to specify “the relevant land” as required under PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a), and Initial Parking has not met the conditions required to transfer liability to the keeper.
2. No Period of Parking Specified – Breach of PoFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(a)
PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a) also requires the NtK to specify the “period of parking” to which the notice relates. ANPR time stamps showing entry and exit times do not constitute a period of parking. They show only two instants in time and do not prove that the vehicle was parked for the full duration.
This was confirmed in the judgment of Brennan v Premier Parking Logistics (Walsall County Court, 31 October 2018), where the court ruled that a period of parking must be shown and that entry/exit images alone are insufficient.
The NtK fails to meet this requirement and is therefore non-compliant with PoFA, meaning keeper liability does not apply.
3. Consideration Period Not Allowed – Breach of the Private Parking Code of Practice
Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, Version 1.1 (17 February 2025), states:
"Drivers must be allowed a consideration period of at least 5 minutes to enable them to decide whether they wish to stay or go."
If the PCN was issued for failing to pay on entry, the operator must show that the driver was given at least 5 minutes to consider the terms. There is no evidence that this was done.
Issuing a charge before the minimum consideration period has elapsed is a breach of the Code and renders the charge unenforceable.
4. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
Initial Parking has not provided evidence that the signage at the alleged site was adequate to form a contract. Section 6 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires that signage must be prominent, legible, and contain the core terms including the parking charge amount.
Unless the operator provides dated photographs of signage visible from all parking locations and the entrance, it cannot demonstrate that the terms were seen and accepted. In the absence of clear signage, no contract was formed, and no charge is due.
5. Poorly Drafted Rejection Letter – Undermines Credibility
The rejection letter from Initial Parking is written in poor and unclear English, containing confusing instructions and contradictory statements, such as:
"Your options 1) Pay the PCN at the reduced amount of £60.00 by 14 days. After this time the opportunity to pay at the reduced amount will no longer be available and the amount outstanding will rise to the full amount of £100.00. This will need to be paid by 14 days."
This statement is self-contradictory and makes no logical sense. The fact that the operator cannot produce a coherent rejection letter seriously undermines its credibility and raises concerns over the reliability and accuracy of its procedures and evidence.
6. Misstated Timeframes – Contradiction of PoFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(f) and the Code of Practice
Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA requires that the NtK invites the keeper to pay or identify the driver “within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.” Under Paragraph 9(6), a notice sent by post is deemed given two working days after posting.
However, the NtK in this case demands payment “within 28 days of the date of issue,” which contradicts PoFA. On the reverse, it also states that appeals must be made “within 28 days from the date of the initial correspondence,” further contradicting the statutory timing.
In addition, Section 9.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1) states:
“The operator must not issue a reminder or take any further enforcement or recovery action, including the sending of a Notice to Keeper or passing details to a debt recovery company, until a period of at least 28 days has passed from the date the Parking Charge Notice is received by the keeper.”
By demanding action within 28 days of issue rather than 28 days from receipt, Initial Parking misrepresents the legal position and fails to comply with both PoFA and the Code. This misdirection invalidates the notice for the purposes of establishing keeper liability.
This appeal is made on the above grounds and I respectfully request that POPLA allows the appeal and instructs Initial Parking to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Got it, submitted appeal. Thank you very much! Have a nice weekend.
Hi I just want to update the parking charge has been withdrawn. Thanks very much for the help!
Winner x 1
View List