Dear ParkingEye,
Re: Parking Charge Notice - [Your Reference Number]Thank you for your letter dated 31st October 2024. However, I must draw your attention to the specific requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, which governs keeper liability in this matter.
While you have referenced section 9(2)(b) of PoFA to suggest that the keeper is liable, Schedule 4 only allows liability to be transferred to the keeper if
all conditions are met, including sections
9(2)(a) and
9(2)(e)(i). Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet these requirements in the following ways:
Non-Compliance with Section 9(2)(a): PoFA 9(2)(a) requires that the NtK
must specify the “relevant land” on which the vehicle was parked. In your notice, the location is simply listed as "Lidl, Ashford". This description is insufficient to meet the statutory requirement, as pointed out in my appeal, there are two different towns named Ashford, each with its own Lidl store. The failure to specify the exact location creates ambiguity, which means the NtK does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(a).
Non-Compliance with Section 9(2)(e)(i): PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) requires that the NtK explicitly
invites the keeper to pay the parking charge if they were not the driver. The wording in your letter, however, does not contain any such invitation. Instead, it states:
“You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the full name and the current postal address of the driver.
You are warned that if, after 29 days from the Date of Issue, the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered keeper.”
As with the original NtK, this wording does not contain any
invitation for the keeper to pay the charge if they were not the driver. Nor does it impose an obligation on the keeper to pay. Instead, it merely warns that, if the charge remains unpaid after 29 days and ParkingEye does not have the name and address of the driver, you may seek to recover the charge from the keeper. This language is insufficient to meet the statutory requirement, which mandates a clear and unambiguous invitation to the keeper to pay the charge if they were not the driver. By omitting this specific invitation, your NtK fails to comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i).
Warning under Section 9(2)(f): The warning you provided under section 9(2)(f) is only valid if
all conditions of PoFA are met. Since your NtK does not comply with sections 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e)(i), this warning does not have effect, as keeper liability cannot be established.
So, I remind you, partial or even substantial compliance with the requirements of PoFA is not sufficient to hold the keeper liable. Given these failures to
fully comply with PoFA, there is no lawful basis to hold the keeper liable for this charge. I therefore request that you cancel this Parking Charge Notice.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
