The Notice to Keeper repeatedly uses the word “motorist” when describing who is responsible for the parking charge. “Motorist” is not a defined or legally meaningful category within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Schedule 4 deals with liability as between specific parties only, namely the driver, the registered keeper, and (where applicable) the hirer. Where an operator intends to pursue the registered keeper under PoFA, it must do so by complying with the statutory conditions and by using the required statutory structure: the driver is primarily liable, and the keeper only becomes liable if all prescribed requirements are met and the driver is not named.
By describing the liable party as “the motorist”, the Notice introduces unnecessary ambiguity because it is not clear whether the operator is alleging liability against the driver, the keeper, or some other undefined person. In that sense, the language is loose and imprecise, and it is reasonable to put the operator to strict proof that the Notice is fully PoFA compliant and that it is in fact attempting to transfer liability to the keeper in the only way Parliament allows.
However, in this particular case, the “motorist” wording is of limited practical relevance because the Notice also contains wording later on that plainly indicates an attempt to rely on PoFA. It explains that the driver is required to pay, invites the keeper to name the driver, and states that after a stated period the operator may pursue the unpaid charge from the registered keeper if the driver is not identified. That is the substance of the PoFA keeper liability warning. So while the use of “motorist” can be criticised as sloppy drafting, it is unlikely, on its own, to defeat their reliance on PoFA if the Notice otherwise includes the mandatory information and warnings in the correct form. In short, the better point is not that the word “motorist” appears, but that the operator must still prove full PoFA compliance overall, and that loose terminology does not cure any missing or defective statutory wording elsewhere.
