Do not identify the driver. They only know the identity of the registered Keeper. They cannot transfer liability from the
unknown (to them. unless you blab it) driver to the
known Keeper.
Southern Water operates Bewl Water as a strategic water resource for East Sussex and Kent. This places the site under statutory regulation for water safety, infrastructure, and environmental protection.
The reservoir is subject to reservoir safety legislation, including the Reservoirs Act 1975, which imposes duties on the undertaker regarding inspection, maintenance, and emergency planning. While the leisure and parking operations are run by Salomons UK Ltd, a private company, the
underlying land remains part of a statutory utility asset.
Because the land is governed by a specific statutory Act and is part of a statutory water undertaking, it is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This means that keeper liability for private parking charges cannot be enforced under PoFA at this location.
if the
unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the
unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
Appeal to First Parking – Re: PCN [Insert Reference Number]
I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued at Bewl Water, TN3 8JH.
Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) purports to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to hold the keeper liable. This is entirely without merit.
Bewl Water is not ‘relevant land’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The site is governed by the Medway Water (Bewl Bridge Reservoir) Act 1968—a statutory provision within the meaning of Paragraph 3(4)—and is therefore subject to statutory control as defined in Paragraph 3(3). This excludes the land from the scope of PoFA, and as such, no keeper liability can arise.
Your attempt to invoke keeper liability is therefore legally flawed. The NtK fails not only on technical compliance but on the fundamental point that PoFA does not apply at all to this location.
There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. First Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. First Parking have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Come back when they reject the appeal and you can try your luck at explaining it all to a POPLA assessor, who will at least have to read it and consider their response.
