Free Traffic Legal Advice

Can you please confirm that the person you are helping is definitely the registered keeper, and they have the vehicle's V5C in their name?

On the alleged breach, you would have a potential argument that an occupant of the vehicle is entitled to reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. However, assuming the answer to the question above is 'yes they are the registered keeper', there's a much easier argument that you can run that should see the charge cancelled (either immediately, or on further appeal to POPLA). The notice has been issued too late to be compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. This means that they cannot recover the charge from the registered keeper of the vehicle. As such, the keeper can appeal with the below:


They should appeal online as the registered keeper - being careful not to tick any boxes etc. that identify the driver (this is very important). They should keep an eye out on their spam folder for the response.

Update. The registered keeper received the letter below. They are now asking what would be the next step.
They were looking to pay the fine, as they are worried about losing the appeal and paying the full amount owed.

What precisely did the Keeper put in their appeal? Please ask them to show us. Reading the response from MET it sounds as though they have not references the delay in sending the NtK properly.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Keeper can only be liable for the charge if they have identified as the diver. Has the Keeper identified as the driver in any way in their appeal?

MET cannot hold the Keeper liable unless they know that the Keeper was also the driver. The only way they would know that the Keeper was also the driver is if the Keeper blabbed it to MET, inadvertently or otherwise. No “I did this or that”, only “the driver did this or that”.

MET are correct in that they can issue an NtK up to seven months after the alleged parking incident. However, as they have no idea of the drivers identity, if they want to be able to hold the Keeper liable for the charge, they must fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

One of the requirements of PoFA is that the NtK must be “given” no later than 14 days after the alleged event. Two working days are allowed for delivery (given). So, as you will see in the NtK, the event date was 1st August. The NtK was issued on Wednesday 21st August. That means that the NtK was “given” on Friday 23rd August, well outside the 14 days required by PoFA to be able to transfer liability from the driver to the Keeper. So, nothing to do with the seven months mentioned in the appeal rejection.

The Keeper now has 33 days from the appeal rejection date to appeal to POPLA. Please ask the Keeper to show us what they plan on sending to POPLA before actually sending it so that it can be checked and critiqued if necessary.

Good. POPLA do not take any mitigation into account so it can only focus on points of law and breaches of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) to show the assessor that the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

How clear are the evidential photos? Do they definitively show that the blue badge was not on display? Are the photos taken manually by a person or are they stills from CCTV? Remember, the burden of proof is on MET to prove that a BB was not on display, not for the Keeper to prove there was.

It should use the following points and then expand on each one separately. There may be others based the answer to the questions above.

1. No Keeper liability as not PoFA compliant.
2. No evidence the person they are pursuing is the driver.
3. Inadequate signage.
4. Non compliance with the BPA CoP.
5. No landholder authority to issue PCNs.