Only the “Creditor” can issue a PoFA-compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK). This is a requirement under Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which states that the notice must be given by or on behalf of the creditor.
In this case, the named Creditor is P4Parking (UK) Ltd, but the NtK was issued by TNC Parking Services, which is a third-party debt collector and not the Creditor. Although the notice identifies the Creditor and includes the required content, it was issued in the name of TNC, not P4Parking.
Because TNC is not the Creditor and has no statutory authority under PoFA to issue the notice, the NtK is not valid for the purposes of holding the keeper liable. Even if the timing and content were otherwise correct, only the Creditor can issue a valid PoFA notice. Keeper liability does not apply.
TNC is ONLY allowed to lawfully engage in debt recovery for parking charges. They can potentially request keeper data as an authorised agent of a BPA member for the narrow purpose of recovering outstanding charges.
However, because they're not an operator, they are not entitled to issue a PoFA-compliant Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 8 Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Only BPA-approved operators, like P4Parking, can issue such notices.
Unity t/a TNC is limited to debt collection—they lack enforcement powers. They are likely authorised under P4Parking’s BPA AOS membership only to request keeper data for debt purposes, not to issue NtKs or notices under PoFA.
Their use of the BPA roundel may be permissible, but only when acting strictly within the scope of debt recovery. If they present as an operator or issue legal notices like an NtK, that exceeds the permitted role.
In short: TNC may access data for debt recovery, as an agent of the operator, but cannot issue Notices to Keeper or enforce parking charges under PoFA.
SO, to summarise your legal position:
• The Keeper (you) is not the leaseholder, but the vehicle is associated with the leaseholder (your father), and he holds parking rights under the lease.
• There is no express requirement in the lease for a permit or for participation in any scheme operated by P4Parking.
• TNC is not the parking operator, nor are they legally permitted to issue PoFA-compliant NtKs.
• No valid NtD was found on the vehicle, and PoFA Paragraph 9 applies if no NtD was served — but the notice received is based on Paragraph 8, indicating that an NtD allegedly was served.
• Since no driver has been identified, and keeper liability under PoFA is not established, no liability can be enforced against the Keeper.
You should appeal with the following:
Subject: Re: Notice to Keeper – PCN [insert reference number] – Vehicle Registration: [XXXXXXX]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write as the Registered Keeper in response to your Notice to Keeper dated [insert date].
I deny any liability for this charge. This is not a valid Notice to Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) for the following reasons:
1. The notice was issued by TNC Parking Services, not the Creditor. Only the Creditor named in the notice (P4Parking UK Ltd) may issue a PoFA-compliant NtK. TNC, being a third-party debt collector and not a party to the alleged contract, lacks standing to pursue keeper liability.
2.You rely on Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of PoFA, which only applies where a valid Notice to Driver (NtD) was affixed to the vehicle. I put you to strict proof that such a notice was served in compliance with PoFA requirements. Absent such proof, your reliance on Paragraph 8 is misconceived, and the notice is not valid for the purpose of establishing keeper liability.
3. I am a resident of the estate and my father is the leaseholder. He holds a lease that makes no mention of any permit requirement, enforcement scheme, or delegation of authority to third parties such as P4Parking. There is no obligation in the lease to display a permit, and no contractual relationship exists between the parties and P4Parking.
4. I am a resident of the estate, and the leaseholder has authorised the vehicle to be parked at the premises. The lease contains no requirement to display a permit and confers no authority for third-party enforcement. There is no contractual relationship between the leaseholder or any authorised resident and P4Parking, and no lawful basis for enforcing terms contrary to the lease.
5. Your continued pursuit of this charge may constitute a breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). You are not entitled to process my personal data in the absence of lawful basis under either PoFA or a legitimate contractual framework. Misuse of DVLA data and false claims of keeper liability will be referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office and DVLA.
Accordingly, you must now:
• Cancel this charge in full,
• Cease processing my data for this or any related matter,
• Confirm that no further correspondence will be sent regarding this charge.
Failure to do so may result in a formal complaint to the DVLA and the ICO, as well as potential legal action for misuse of personal data.
