Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all, looking for advice on next steps.

Parking Charge Notice received on 7th May to registered keeper's address. The parking event was on 17th April and the letter dated 4th May. So it was sent 17 days after the event and arrived 20 days after.

It makes the assumption that the owner was the driver as it says if you're not the driver to give them the name and address of the driver. Therefore as far as I understand, it is a 'Notice to Keeper' and must follow the Protection of Freedoms Act - which requires the notice to be received within 14 days. However, it does not explicitly specify that it is an NTK...

The charge was appealed using their online form stating that the charge is not valid due to not adhering to the PFA (particularly Paragraph 9 about the notice time limitations etc).Annoyingly the appeal text was not copied/pasted so I cannot share the exact message. However the driver was not named.

They have replied yesterday saying the appeal was unsuccessful because there was no evidence that the parking was paid for. Completely ignoring the fact that it was sent too late.

They say it can be appealed through POPLA - is that worth doing or is that just a bunch of their mates? It also says that if an appeal is made to POPLA then they automatically refuse to offer any discount (which seems like a bribe/coercion to NOT appeal?!)

Am I correct in my belief that it should have been sent earlier in order to be a valid 'invoice'?

Thanks in advance

How does this look? It's been put together with info from a couple of sources on this forum and online:


Dear Sirs,

I received the Parking Charge Notice (Ref: xxxxxxx) for vehicle registration mark xxxx xxxx in which CarParkingPartnership (CPP) alleges that the driver has incurred a parking charge.

However, as already stated in my appeal to CPP which they rejected without comment, the operator, CPP, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As a result, keeper liability does not arise.

In particular:

--The Notice to Keeper was not served within the statutory timeframe required under Paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4; and
--The Notice to Keeper fails to include the mandatory wording required under Schedule 4.
 
Where strict compliance with Schedule 4 is absent, the operator cannot transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

As the operator has not identified the driver, and I am appealing as the registered keeper, the appeal should be allowed.

Yours,


xxxxxxxx

Alight amendment to highlight the delay / issue:


Dear Sirs,

I received the Parking Charge Notice (Ref: xxxxxxx) for vehicle registration mark xxxx xxxx in which CarParkingPartnership (CPP) alleges that the driver has incurred a parking charge.

However, as already stated in my appeal to CPP which they rejected without comment, the operator, CPP, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The notice was dated May 4th which was 17 days after the alleged parking charge was due and then there were the additional 3 days before the notice was delivered which is a total of 20 days.

As a result, keeper liability does not arise.

In particular:

The Notice to Keeper was not served within the statutory timeframe required under Paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4; and
The Notice to Keeper fails to include the mandatory wording required under Schedule 4.
 
Where strict compliance with Schedule 4 is absent, the operator cannot transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

As you can see above, the notice could not possibly have been served in compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As the operator has not identified the driver, and I am appealing as the registered keeper, the appeal should be allowed.

Yours,


xxxxxxxx

No, I agree. Point it out in clear wording so they can't pretend they didn't get the point being made...



Modified the last paragraph to:


As you can see above, the notice could not possibly have been served in compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As a result, keeper liability does not arise. I am the registered keeper and I am not liable for this charge. Furthermore, the operator has not identified the driver and, as I am appealing as the registered keeper, the appeal should be allowed.

Anything you disagree with in the “evidence pack” you need to rebut, otherwise it could be concluded that you agree with it.

But you should lead with your primary point. Just make it short and clear. Then go on to rubbish anything else they’ve said that’s wrong.

They simply ignore points they can’t defend, which is why they haven’t mentioned PoFA.

And lead that you’re responding as the registered keeper, of course.

Thanks both.

So along the lines of:


As the Registered Keeper I am not liable for this charge. The Operator's own evidence (Case History: 04/05/26 - "Legislation Used: NonPOFA_POPLA - Issued To: Keeper") confirms that they are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) and that the letter/charge was issued to the Keeper. The driver remains unidentified and there is no PoFA route as the Operator has confirmed it was non-PoFA. Therefore there is no possible route to the keeper being liable for the charge and it should be cancelled.

I'm not sure where to find a source for "Therefore there is no possible route to the keeper being liable for the charge"

As I thought everything was covered by the PoFA whether they invoke it or not?

Their own case evidence shows that they are not relying on PoFA.

.....

Therefore there is no possible route to the keeper being liable for the charge.

However, I have found this on the BPAA website (of which the operator is a registreed member):

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/Independent-Appeals-Service

On private land, and this includes private land owned by public bodies, it is the DRIVER who is liable for any charges arising from a trespass or for not complying with the rules for parking which, in most cases, is simply a breach of contract. And it is the driver who is trespassing or breaches the contract.

The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 does not alter this fundamental principle of DRIVER liability. What it does do, importantly, is to allow proceedings against the registered keeper for unpaid parking charges when the creditor, usually the landowner or their agent the parking operator, DOES NOT KNOW WHO THE DRIVER WAS at the time.

...

The creditor must follow the procedures set out in PoFA Schedule 4 to achieve the benefits of 'keeper liability' as described.

So basically they can only proceed against the DRIVER (who is unidentified) as it is private land. The only way they can change this to be able to proceed against the registered keeper is to use PoFA. They chose not to use PoFA (as per their case history) therefore cannot make use of the 'Keeper Liability'. And, secondly, even if they had used PoFA for Keeper Liability, they were too late to issue the charge notice anyway.

Am I understanding that correctly?